Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

July 14

hinduism /thantric symbolisms of Lord Siva

What is the thantric significance of the symbolism having 3 leafs and a nose like structure ( GOLAKA) appearing in Lord Siva temples throughout Kerala.

ANCHERY DHILEEP VARMA KOCHI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.134.252 (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused as to what feature you are looking for. If you are refering to Goloka symbolism, the Wikipedia article is a bit sparse, but does seem to indicate some symbolism regarding the lotus, perhaps that is the three-leaved structure you are seeing? Since you reference Shiva as well, the Wikipedia article Shiva, under the section titled "Atributes" indicates that he is frequently shown with a Trishula, which has three points that could be described as leaves. The Trishula article discusses some of the symbolism of it. --Jayron32 05:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The real reason Annie Whitenmeyer home was closed

I am trying to find the public information as to the real reason the home was closed in I believe was the early 60's . I know the the real reason, I am just wondering if the truth was ever published. thank you. Rick Smith resident name ( Ricky Tanner) I can be contacted at email address redacted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.66.79 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, I assume that the OP is referring to the Annie Wittenmyer Home, which was closed in 1975. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban healthcare

How does Cuba have such good healthcare even though it's so poor? --134.10.113.198 (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you a question first. Cuba has good healthcare?!? --Jayron32 19:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Healthcare in Cuba (which, for a poor country, is generally considered pretty good, at least in Latin America). WikiDao ☯ 19:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When Cuba was supported by the former USSR, they built extensive medical school, training, and hospital facilities as part of their outreach to the Latin American countries, so they ended up with far more capacity than would have ordinarily been built for a country of their size. When Soviet money dried up, the large number of trained teaching physicians have generally been able to maintain what would ordinarily be seen as an excess medical capacity. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"For years in Cuba, jobs as varied as farm workers and doctors only had a difference in their wages of the equivalent of a few US dollars a month. The average monthly wage in Cuba is around $20 (£10) leaving many Cubans struggling to make ends meet." [1]. (And note that farmers could presumably get free food, so that may make them effectively better off than the doctors.) I also understand that service people, like waiters, who gets tips from tourists, earn far more than many doctors. StuRat (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going back even further, it can be educational to look at the lives of Alberto Granado and "Che" Guevara, particularly the part told in The Motorcycle Diaries. There's a book and a film. They were both students in medical fields, who followed and applied their interests in their travels and later in Cuba. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To explain it in a different way, let's start by comparing with a capitalist nation. There, resources are allocated according to ability to pay. So, a poor capitalist nation would have minimal medical care, as few could afford it. However, in a nation like Cuba, the dictator can simply declare medical care to be a priority and it becomes so. There is still the issue of how to pay for it, though. In Cuba's case, the doctors are paid virtual starvation wages, so that explains it. StuRat (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think Cuban doctors are paid virtual starvation wages? Don't they have merit pay? I suspect the main difference might be that Cuban pays its specialties according to demand, while in the U.S. we pay according to average earning ability based on expected cases. Do you think the U.S. could ever offer residents general practitioner positions with more pay than a brain or heart surgeon? We need to reward all the professions in a manner consistent with their demand, so it's an administrative detail as to whether we actually do, I hope. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and while Cuba has always had a strong ratio of doctors to population, I imagine it won't have been so well resourced with modern equipment and medicines. HiLo48 (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While our article points out serious problems with the way the Cuban government treats its medical professionals, the country does have good enough care to have a lower infant mortality rate than the United States, and about the same overall life expectancy rate. Insert coughing and extremely unsubtle promotion of the dread specter of socialized medicine :-) ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 18:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't say such bad things about Medicare, it may be popular with voters. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two contradictory articles

Bastille#Storming says that "over 120 of the guards of the Bastille were murdered" after the surrender, while the main article--Storming_of_the_Bastille--says most guards left safely. Imagine Reason (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there were 243 guards. 188.222.102.201 (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) The word "murdered" is a loaded word, and probably shouldn't be used in this particular context, unless there were formal trials under the due process of law, and there are convictions involved. I doubt it in this case, so a more neutral word ("died", or "were killed") may be more appropriate. 2) Forget what the Wikipedia articles say. What does the source material say? That is, those statements need references. I haven't looked at the articles yet, but in general you should always check the sources when there is a disagreement. --Jayron32 00:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP changed "some of the guards" to "over 120 of the guards" in [2]. I have reverted it. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there were about 30 Swiss guards and 80 or 85 Invalides, so some of those guys would have had to have done double duty! Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I suddenly imagining the following scene at the fall of the Bastille (with due credit to Monty Python):

Commander of the Bastille Guard: Mes Amis! You shall not have been murdered in vain!
Guard: Uh, we-we're not quite dead, sir.
Commander: Well, you shall not have been mortally wounded in vain!
Guard: Uh, I-I think uh, we could pull through, sir.
Commander: Oh, I see.
Guard: Actually, I think we are all right to come with you.
Commander: No, no, mes amis! Stay here! I will send help as soon as I have accomplished a daring and heroic escape in my own particular... (sigh)
Guard: Idiom, sir?
Commander: Idiom!
Guard: No, we feel fine, actually, sir.
Commander: Farewell, mes amis! (rushes off)
Guard: We'll-uh, We'll just stay here, then, shall we, sir? Yeah. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

Historically accurate painting of Jesus' crucifixion

Does anybody know of a painting of Jesus' crucifixion that tries to be historically accurate? I've yet to see one that portrays Jesus as Middle Eastern instead of white, has "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" written on top in 3 languages, and features a T-shaped cross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.16.144 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very difficult to be truly historically accurate since all evidence indicates that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, and even if you go with what people claim about his existence, it is filled with opinion, hope, speculation, assumption, conflicting ideas and so on. However, I guess this should be interpreted as a quest for the best historically accurate depiction based on what would likely to be the case, given where he lived, his ethnic background, the details of the common practices of crucifixions and so on. I looked but was not able to find much. See [3] and [4].--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is just, well... wrong. There is no evidence afaik suggesting he didn't exist (none that I have heard about from several noted biblical archaeologists, all of whom are Jews btw). The earliest evidence about him is from 70 AD of course, so it's very sketchy. So there's no evidence suggesting he didn't exist, but no evidence that decisively says he did exist yet. To answer the OP. I'll bet someone has made a painting in recent years that matches what you're probably looking for. A man with olive complexion crucified through his wrists and hands. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I would go so far as to say that he definitively didn't exist. The best thing we can say is that we don't know how accurately the Gospels portay him in terms of historical accuracy, but there is pretty good consensus that he was a real person, in the same sense that other semi-mythic figures, such as the Buddha or King Arthur, that is there are real people behind the stories, its just that the details of their stories aren't well corroborated by other evidence. In other words, there was probably really a dude who lived in Israel at the time who probably led some sort of minor rebellion/heretical movement and may have been executed for it. How much of his story has been preserved accurately, and how much was embelished by his followers is, from a historical point of view, unknown, and possibly unknowable. But to say "all evidence indicates that he didn't exist" is plainly false also. --Jayron32 17:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we have now wandered into a frequent topic at the Fringe Theories notice board, that of the Jesus myth theory. Jayron's view is, I believe, more currently accepted among scholars, but Fuhghettaboutit's view is also well represented among serious academics. You must realize that this field of scholarly research, more so than pretty much any other field, is tainted by the personal beliefs of those involved, and it can be hard for an outsider to truly get a grasp on how valid the current research is by different parties. Buddy431 (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you refer to as "historically accurate" is based on opinion, not historical fact. With 2,000 years (about 100 generations) between the time of Jesus and the present, are you claiming that you are absolutely certain that the physical appearance of those around Israel/Palestine now is exactly as they appeared back then? If you want a factual example of how appearances change, look at Italy with African influence on the south and Germanic influence on the north. You can choose to have Jesus be anything you like. I live in a predominantly black area, so many people have paintings and pictures of Jesus as a black man, not white. I've also seen pictures of him as Asian. Then, there is the T-shaped cross. That is an assumption. There are historical records of using a T-shaped cross. There are historical records of using a pole. There are historical records of using a high branch of a tree. So, we just assume they used a T-shaped cross that time? Then, why three languages and that specific message? All in all, it is no more historical than the popular paintings. -- kainaw ™ 00:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I referred to as "historically accurate" was my impression of what most academics believe, not personal opinion. If you think the academic consensus is different, please explain why instead of trying to shoot down what you think are my own theories. --140.180.16.144 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current academic concensus afaik is that he did exist, but we don't have good enough evidence yet (hell, we didn't have evidence of Pontius Pilatus's existence until an amphitheatre dedicated by him was found). To some extent a lot of what people say is based on History Channel and NatGeo specials (that will piss off a lot of people, I know, but it's true). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of Jesus' existence is hardly contested. Third century forgers simply would not have had the facts available to them to allow them to interpolate into Jesus' reported speech matters which have only recently become understandable through textual analysis in light of such long-lost evidence as the dead sea scrolls and so forth. Forgers would also not have inserted matters which are difficult for Christians to explain such as his brothers, his doubts on the cross, and his anger at the temple--these humanistic touches contradict the perfect and divine view that any would-be-forgers would have had. In effect, the imperfection of the 'forgery' proves its authenticity. There is nothing wrong with seeking out an historically plausible depiction of the event. But my favorite is Dali's Corpus Hypercubus. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars, non-Christian and Christian, acknowledge that Epistles of Paul were written by him and probably less than 40 years after Jesus's death and so within living memory of those who knew Jesus. But a fierce Roman invasion of Israel and Jerusalem in 70 AD in which many people were slaughtered and whole towns raized probably destroyed much evidence. Yet a huge amount of non Christian evidence can still be got. The Roman historian Tacitus (first century) writes of Christus who suffered at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Also the Jewish historian Josephus in his Antiqities who writes of "James the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ". Julius Africanus reported that someone called Thallus spoke of the darkness that came after the execution of Jesus. The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) described the crucifixion/hanging of Jesus at the time of the Passover. Many of these sources also describe Jesus's activities some calling him a good man, a magician, a sourcerer. I think its fair to say that the man existed and that he had a following as a holy man in his own lifetime. --Bill Reid | (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to Jayron, the original responder before Say Shalom! interlineated above him) I don't think you mean that article but probably Historicity of Jesus. Doesn't matter. We don't have an article that deals with the issue in any proper way. The evidence (mostly negative evidence, with both for and against being, by necessity, inductive in nature) is that he did not. The area is so full of apologetics and confirmation bias, a great deal of the scholarship coming from those assuming the truth of the question at issue and working to find evidence to support the result, that a statement about the consensus of scholars in this area is worthless until your separate out who are approaching the topic from an untainted place to actually consider the question from a logical standpoint, seeking to find the answer to a question, wherever evidence and logic would lead them. This is not an atheistic thing, though I am an atheist. I find religion fascinating, and have no stake in finding one way or the other, but it is very difficult to let the evidence take you were it will when one is a believer which, perforce of that belief, assumes already that of course Jesus existed, making it near impossible for one to approach the question scientifically. From the standpoint of someone examining it like an archeologist, the lack of evidence where it should be seen is startlingly and the arguments for his existence are, where they aren't begging the question which is seen in a vast amount of the scholarship, relatively weak rationalizations. To get into a vast debate over the evidence is probably beyond the scope here. I have read much in the area and stand by what I said.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three languages - see

T-shape - see

White Crucifixion 1938
Starck Triptych c. 1480
The Beautiful Mess contemporary
Freiburg altar 1512 (may also have three languages but it's hard to tell)
Crucifixion by Jorg Breu the Elder 1524
this sketch by Michaelangelo
Tergensee Passion 1446 (though this looks like an old man, so I'm not sure if it is supposed to be Jesus)
this by Master of the Virgo inter Virgines 1490 (though maybe it's just cut off at the top of the image)
Crucifixion by Paolo Veneziano 1390
Crucifix in Assissi by Cimabue 1280

Your other criterion I'm not really sure how to evaluate. Jesus has a darker skin in this image. 184.147.120.65 (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Madonna discusses Maries with a dark skin tone; I'm not sure about pictures of adult Jesus. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a source numerous times

I'm writing a rather lengthy research paper utilizing 45 different sources. I'm using the Tiburian citation style because it is footnote friendly. I know how to use the style when listing in footnotes and the bibliography, but what if I cite 2 or 3 of the same books over and over again? Is there an abbreviated format in Tiburian style that I can use, like "last name, page #" or "last name, book name, page #"? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean Turabian. There is an abbreviated footnote format. See this guide. You usually use "Last name, Abbreviated book name, page #." You can also use "Last name, page #," too. Just be consistent either way. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ibid. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 part question about ADOLF HITLER

ok the first part of this question IS. Does Hitler have any living progeny or relatives, and if so have they been OUTED. if they have been outed, so to speak, do people harrass them because they are related? I think harrassment is wrong, so you don't need to list their names here, I am just wondering if it has ever happened.

My second question is about the surname HITLER. Before World War II, was it a common name in German-speaking lands? or was it highly unusual?--Fran Cranley (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we know at what level of knowledge that you're starting from, have you read the Hitler family article? Dismas|^(talk) 04:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you ask that question. I did read some things on Wikipedia about Hitler's relatives but I can't find anything about his relatives that are alive TO THIS DAY, nor about whether they have experienced harrassment. I am not talking about the 1960s, etc, I mean in contemporary times.--Fran Cranley (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no members of his immediate family still living. His sister, Paula Hitler was the only one of his 5 siblings to reach adulthood, and she had no offspring. Hitler had none, either. That line is finished. The article Hitler family shows lines at the level of the siblings of Hitler's parents and grandparents who may have living descendents, but the last date there, and it is for the Braun family rather than the Hitlers, is 1972. Bielle (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Leo Rudolf Raubal Jr, who was Hitler's half-nephew (the son of his half-sister Angela Hitler). Leo Rudolf Raubal Jr is deceased, but he had children who appear to be still alive; his children (which would be Hitler's half-grand-nephews and half-grand-neices) would be Hitlers closest relatives still alive. Hitler had several other half-siblings as well, and their grandchildren (such as the living children of William Patrick Hitler) would be equally as closely related. There appears to be roughly a half-dozen or so living "half-grand-nephews/neices" of Hitler roaming the planet, and these are his closest living relatives. --Jayron32 04:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your second question, see this archived question. "Adolf's father, Alois Hitler, was illigitimate, but took the surname of Johann Georg Hiedler who married his mother when Alois was 5 years old. The name Hitler seems to have been the product of a bureaucratic spelling mistake.". Alansplodge (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name Hitler was unusual or unique in the German-speaking countries and now appears very likely to have died out (though distant relatives with other surnames are alive today). Marco polo (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a Hitler in the German telephone guide. I suppose he is the subject of constant telephone pranks by German teenagers.

Purchasing power in Russia and the Baltic states.

I've been using an interesting website - http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/ - for getting information on average salaries, cost of living and costs of individual products and services recently. Curiously, their information on the local purchasing power seems to suggests the purchasing power (and mean salaries) are higher in Russia, compared with Latvia or Lithuania (they still have Estonia's purchasing power as higher than in Russia).

To be honest, I find this really surprising. Can anyone corroborate this or dispute their findings? For I've been expecting the purchasing power and salaries in Russia to be lower than in those two Baltic economies (other statistics give Russia's HDI as much lower than in those countries). Does anyone have information on the data offered? Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics from the European Commission have some information on the cost of living in Lithuania and Latvia; there's also some more information in the Working conditions > Renumeration section. Comparing these with the figures for Russia from Numbeo, it does appear that salaries in Russia are higher, as are the costs of goods (providing I'm not reading/converting incorrectly!) --Kateshortforbob _talk 13:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all that surprising to me, as Russia quickly moved to capitalism, while many of the other communist nations were slower to adapt. This, combined with a lack of subsidies from Russia and trade with the Warsaw Pact, in many cases led to stagnant economies, such as in Cuba. StuRat (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not true. In particular it is not true when comparing Baltics and Russia (though I guess it's true for Russia vs. Cuba). Anyway, I'm not sure what the surprise is. Cost of living is usually higher in richer countries - see Balassa-Samuelson effect. So the fact that it is higher in Latvia and Estonia should come as no surprise. The only weird thing is the "Local Purchasing Power" entry - but really, who knows how they came up with that, what it actually represents or how they got their data. In fact, this sort of looks like it's just a user generated site where anyone can enter whatever they think happens to be right. Overall, this is junk.

If you want real numbers then you got to go to international organizations which actually invest a buttload of money in gathering data, double checking it etc. You can also see official government websites but those usually are not going to adjust for purchasing power parity deviations (i.e. different prices across countries). You should also be suspicious of any place that gives you "up to date" (like 2011 or even 2010) data. Quite simply it takes about 6 months just to collect the data under ideal circumstances (in the richest countries) and at least another 6 months to process it. So anything that's remotely accurate is going to be for 2009 or before.

So, looking at World Bank data really quick gives:

Converted at market exchange rates, Estonia's 2009 per capita GDP is 6113$, Latvia's is 4973$ (down from 6296$ in 2007 because of the recent crisis) and Russia's is 2805$. So Russia's per capita GDP is 45% of Estonia, and 56% of Latvia's (even taking into account that Latvia was especially hit by the financial crisis). Now, of course these numbers don't adjust for differences in cost of living across countries.

So, converted at purchasing power parity adjustment (this is done relative to the $, hence, implicitly to each other), Estonia's 2009 per capita GDP is 16132$, Latvia's 12847$ (down from 16265$ in 2007) and Russia's is 13611$. Russia's PPP adjusted per capita GDP is then 84% of Estonia's and it is 5% higher than Latvia's. What this means is that yes, cost of living is lower in Russia than in the two Baltic countries (I forgot to pull Lithuanian data and don't feel like doing it again). The fact that stuff costs more in Estonia reduces the gap between it's average income and Russian average income from a 55% difference to a 16% difference. For Latvia it goes from Latvia being seemingly richer by 46% to Latvia being poorer - once costs of living are taken into account - by 5%. Again, for Latvia this comes from the fact that the financial crisis was particularly severe. If they bounce back from it they'll likely experience a couple years of very rapid growth and it will look very much like the Estonia-Russia difference.

One last word about the Human Development Index - that takes even longer to compile. In addition to per capita income it includes the level of education and life expectancy. In terms of education levels there's probably very little difference between the Baltics and Russia (since they pretty much inherited the same educational system and this kind of thing is very "sticky"). Likewise, Eastern Europe as a whole tends to have a low life expectancy given it's income - all that drinking and smoking. I'd guess that Russia's probably lower than Estonia's and Latvia's, so the difference in the HDI would be slightly greater than the differences in per capita incomes. But that's just a conjecture. I might look it up tomorrow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@StuRart: I'm afraid you are wrong on most accounts. Shock therapy in the Baltic states was actually more aggressively pursued than in Russia and given the higher GDP in the soviet Baltic republics one can doubt as to who had been subsidizing whom.

@VM: Yes, I was aware of the differences in GDP, but seemingly believed the income in Russia to be still considerably lower than in Lithuania/Latvia (perhaps also because of my memory clinging to comparisons made here in Estonia concerning Estonia vs. Russia, leaving the two other Baltic states out and also considering that although GDPwise Estonia ranks a bit higher than Poland, yet the salaries seem to be a bit lower - and most definitely were some years ago (I remember a document on that from around the time of our EU accession).

The input to the NUMBEO 'local purchasing power' indicator includes 'Median Monthly Disposable Salary (After Tax)' which they claim to be higher in Russia (than in LT/LV). I will try to find verifiable materials on salaries (just googled this link: [5] “Personal disposable income went up 3.2 percent to 18,183 rubles ($648) in May” i.e. 458 euros). They indeed have it higher in Russia. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, essentially GDP per capita = income (there's some subtleties - whether you're talking about "income of an average person living in Russia" (GDP) or "income of an average person with Russian citizenship" (GNP), how tax payments are handled, and how capital depreciation is treated - but all these are essentially minor). The purchasing power adjusted income in Latvia is (slightly) lower in Russia essentially because Latvia was hit particularly hard by the recent financial crisis. Usually what happens in situations like these is that you see a large drop in incomes then a pretty quick recovery (trend-reversion) after the crisis is over. So it's very likely that in the next five years or so Latvia's average income will come back to where it as.

The "salaries vs GDP" thing has to do with labor's share in GDP. Basically GDP is income from all sources (labor, capital, land) whereas salaries (roughly) only constitute income from labor. So here it depends on how widely the distribution of ownership of firms and land is. I don't think there's any substantial difference in this regard between Russia and the Baltics - again, since they all inherited a lot from the Soviet Union, and these kinds of variables can be very persistent, it means there's very little difference.

I'm not seeing any comparison between Russia and the Baltics in the link you provide. Be careful with comparing numbers from different sources as the adjustment for cost of living and differences in cost of living across countries can be quite different from source to source. This is also why you can't pull income numbers from the Russian gov website and pull some numbers from the Latvian gov website and compare them - it's not that the data is sketchy or wrong, it's just that a different measuring stick is being used, it's like comparing inches and centimeters (neither is wrong, just a different measuring standard). It is essential to use data from a single source for these kinds of comparisons.

And like I said, when I was looking up the data I forgot to include Lithuania in the comparison but that can be easily done (get your numbers from here for example).Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philosopher

Is it possible to be recognized as a philosopher without a formal academic degree in philosophy? --Owlzz (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Read about Eric Hoffer, a self-educated "longshoreman philosopher," who was widely honored for his original contributions in numerous books about philosophy and the psychology of mass movements. Edison (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can be recognized as just about anything without "formal training", there are many alternate paths to careers and vocations, and some people without formal training in a field go on to be very notable in that field. Srinivasa Ramanujan was a very skilled mathematician who had almost no formal schooling at all. My wife had a college professor who, before he earned his PhD, hadn't had any schooling beyond the eighth grade. He literally went, on paper from not having a high school diploma to having a PhD. While the path to getting a job is harder for people without any training at all, it isn't impossible. What you need to be "recognized" is the ability to do the job; while a training certificate or diploma is a convenient means to "prove" said ability, you can also prove it by, well, doing it. --Jayron32 15:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Ramanujan had considerable formal schooling, starting school at age 5, and attending primary school, secondary school and college until he was 18 or 19. Unfortunately, from his early teens onwards, his obsession with mathematics lead to a lack of interest and poor performance in all other subjects. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But he still had no "academic degree" in mathematics, and his mathematical skills were not taught to him as part of any formal school program. He didn't get his PhD and then start working in the field, his knowledge of mathematics is almost completely self-taught and we are still "allowed" to call him a mathematician despite all of that. The point is merely that being something isn't contingent upon having a piece of paper that says you are it. --Jayron32 16:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work with everything, though. You can have the best driving skills in the world but if you've never held a licence, or the one you had has expired or been cancelled, then there's no way you can be a "licenced driver". You really do need that little card to be that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But we're talking about academic qualifications and professions, not driving cars. I suppose your exception would work for jobs like Truck Driver and some highly regulated professions like "Surgeon" and "Lawyer", but there are still lots of professions in the world where "being able to do the job" is enough. I'm not positive either, but I do believe that even with someone like a Lawyer, being able to pass the bar exam should qualify you as a lawyer even if you didn't have a degree. It may still be technically possible to be a self-trained lawyer. --Jayron32 21:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Ramanujan was something of an unknown until a guy with a PhD picked him up, took him to a university setting, and told everyone how brilliant he was. It's not like he was living in a hut away from academia or anything. It really depends who you want to be recognized by. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Aristotle, Plato and Socrates didn't have PhDs. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So all you need are togas? (Seriously, the ancients aren't exactly useful for discussing anything modern relating to being recognized as something.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plato founded the Academy of Athens, which was virtually the beginning of modern academia (hence the name), and Aristotle studied and taught there for several years. So by the standards of the day they were as scholarly certified as they could be. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Plato did had much to do with the material or social circumstances of the present. I suspect that what Plato and Aristotle did at said institutions had virtually no relationship with what is currently done in the academy. The modern research university is a very new institution by comparison. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any card-carrying philosophers consider her to be much of a philosopher. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends who you want to be recognized by. Academic philosophy is an inward-looking institution that, like most of academia, doesn't really acknowledge the possibility that anyone outside of academia has a brain. You're going to have a hard time getting them to care about your work unless you speak their language verbatim, and even then, if you don't have a position to back you up, then you're just an "independent scholar" which is a term that means "totally crazy person" to an established academic.

If you don't care about academia, then it's just a matter of impressing a lot of other people. Ayn Rand is an example — she wrote books that purportedly contained a lot of philosophy. Very few academic philosophers would consider her "philosophical" work to be of much interest. But the general interest is there, to the point that she's still a best-selling author. Her best-sellingness has of course encouraged academics to pay more attention to her than they would otherwise.

Having a PhD does not mean "I am very smart." It means, "I did my time in the trenches, I got up to speed on the formal canon you expect me to know, and if it's from a good institution, I'm either good at standardized testing or are well-connected or are clearly fairly clever." For other academics it's the mandatory pass to say "ok, you can talk to us," but it doesn't mean a whole lot objectively beyond that. That's not to knock 'em — they do mean something — but it's important to recognize that they are more like a passport to a rather insular and isolated country than they are like a certification of intelligence. (I say this as someone who has one such passport.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although I titles this post "Philosopher", I am talking about recognition in any field as an expert without formal academic degree in that field. I found the name of architect like Daniel Burnham who did not have degree in architecture. --Owlzz (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition by whom? μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on the field in any case. Some fields of study are more amenable to outsiders than others. It does not surprise me that a practice-based field like architecture would have a few people in it who displayed their expertise through their works than their fields. In some fields this is very unlikely. But you're also picking an example from the 19th century, before many fields professionalized too much anyway. It doesn't make any sense to pick very old historical examples as models of the present. A huge amount has changed in professionalization of many fields since then. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Lacan trained as a psychoanalyst but his writings have had a huge influence on recent philosophy. Sigmund Freud wrote philosophical works which influenced many people. Friedrich Hayek studied law and economics. Friedrich Nietzsche's education was in philology. Ernst Mach studied physics and mathematics. Herbert Marcuse's doctorate was in literature; I believe so was György Lukács's but I can't find any confirmation online.--Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buying a house, an apartment, and condominiums in population declining cities

I got a friend who says that he wants to move to either Chicago where he grew up or Detroit where he was born. I read that both Chicago's and Detroit's population has decreased significantly. In 1950, Chicago had a population of over 3.6 million people, and Detroit had a population of over 1.84 million, but today Chicago has about 2.7 million and Detroit has over 700,000 people. Does that mean that with less people in those cities today, there are a lot of empty houses, apartments, and condos now, and my friend buying a house, a condo, or an apartment in either those cities would be much easier now than in the 1950s? Would that make them cheaper too? Willminator (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, yes. At least to some extent. I'm not too familiar with Chicago/Detroit real estate prices, but some Swedish regions have an experience of depopulation over last decades. You may find a house in some distant parts of Smaland and Norrbotten for 50,000 SEK (the same house in Stockholm might cost well over 4 million SEK). I saw a newsreport once of a family-sized house (seemingly with multiple bedrooms) outside Boden being sold for 10,000 SEK cash about 5-6 years ago (in Stockholm people can pay up to 10,000 SEK for 1 month rent for a tiny apartment in the city). Basically, you have people who own a house they moved out from long ago and are willing to sell as fast as possible.

That however applies mainly to individual houses for sale. With apartments it might be quite different. Probably many of the apartment blocks that housed workers in Detroit have been torn down by now, so the supply of apartments is not necessarily much larger. To maintain a large multi-apartment building is quite costly, and if the owner has several unrented apartments for a longer time it is likely the building will be torn down or converted into something else.

Also, do bear in mind that consumers in 1950 might have had different preferences than today. Perhaps people lived in larger families in rather crowded spaces? Then the number of apartments might be static, just that each individual occupies a much larger space. --Soman (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And would that mean that that the opposite is true for cities with a growing population; that it is harder to find and more expensive to buy a house or condo in cities with growing populations like New York (yep, I said New York) and Los Angeles? Willminator (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The decline in Detroit is well-documented by the media including a year-long series by Time magazine. One of the mayor's major promises was to tear down 3,000 houses a year (so far, on schedule, too). He also put together a panel to investigate abandoning sections of the city (or converting them to farms). Affording a home in the city is only one issue. Rmhermen (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the two cities that you name: Chicago is more expensive than in the 1950s, with very little empty housing, while Detroit is much cheaper, with lots of empty housing. While Chicago's urban population has declined, its overall population has swelled by 70% since the 1950s. Nationwide, the size of the average American house is 2.5 times larger than in the 1950s. Inner-city Chicago is no exception: lots of places that squeezed in a family of 6 or so in the 1950s are now typically for families of 2 or 3. What makes Detroit different is that its population decline has been sharper, and while in 1950 Detroit was wealthy by American standards, now it's poor by American standards. --M @r ē ino 17:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Half price Detroit homes Rmhermen (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(after many ECs)Chicago is VERY different than Detroit. Chicago has become heavily gentrified, in that many older, poorer neighborhoods have been torn down and replaced by very rich neighborhoods. When I was living in Chicago (1998-2000), I lived in Little Italy, Chicago, a part of the Near West Side, Chicago. I lived in a third-floor appartment of one of those ubiquitous Chicago graystones, but when I walked to campus at UIC where I was attending grad school at the time, I walked right past some of the most blighted, run-down housing project blocks in the city. They were literally tearing those down and replacing them with $500,000 two bedroom townhomes. The population decline in Chicago is mostly a result of gentrification; that is old high-density housing blocks being replaced by relatively lower density, and very expensive, upper-middle-class housing. Chicago is suffering from the same depression in housing prices as anywhere, but you are still not going to find any "steals" there, land and housing is very expensive. Detroit is another matter entirely. For various reasons outside of the scope of this question, Chicago has not really suffered the sort of "rust belt" economic collapse that Detroit has, and as a result, where as Chicago has become gentrified, Detroit has become abandoned. You can literally buy a single family home in Detroit for under $1000 (not that you'd necessarily want to live in it), consider that the Silverdome stadium Sold for the same price as a 1200-square foot condo in Chicago. Detroit is in a vastly different situation. The city is currently in the process of evacuating and disincorporating large swaths of territory. If price is your only concern (say, you can work from home and don't need a job and could literally live anywhere), and you do your research and find a decent neighborhood, Detroit definitely offers some real "steal", from a real-estate point of view. If you can afford a home in Chicago, you may be able to afford a whole neighborhood in Detroit. Or maybe a Stadium. --Jayron32 18:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a Detroiter, I have to address some misconceptions:

1) The Pontiac Silverdome is not in Detroit. It's in Pontiac, another Michigan city with similar problems. (It's might be considered a Detroit suburb, but note that there are nice suburbs between the two, which are thriving.)

2) The decline in Detroit city population is caused by white flight and, more recently, the collapse of the American-made automobile industry (due largely to globalization).

3) While the population of Detroit proper has been declining for decades, much of that is movement to the suburbs, so the Detroit metropolitan area population has been more or less steady.

4) While Detroit Mayor Dave Bing did propose closing off parts of the city, that proposal didn't got over well, and seems dead-in-the-water to me.

5) Even within Detroit, the decline is highly patchy. That is, some areas are abandoned with nothing left but squatters and crack houses, while other communities are doing well. Of course, the house prices are higher in the good areas, but still well below the national average.

6) Beware that Detroit proper has a city income tax, so perhaps a suburb might be better, if you want to avoid that. StuRat (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of going to go go off topic a bit, but I got to point something out that you all seem to be saying. Correct me if I misunderstood you all. It seems like you guys are saying that the reason Chicago’s population is declining is because its doing better since the city is becoming gentrified, but from what I’ve read Chicago is becoming poorer and doing worse like, Detroit. Retail taxes in Chicago are the highest in the country, the public school system is pretty bad and is bad and empty, and crime is becoming worse. “The horrible public schools, high taxes, and crime have driven families out of Chicago." Willminator (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I lived there a little over 10 years ago, but I didn't see a "city in decline". Yeah, Chicago had its shithole neighborhoods, but in general it wasn't a bad city to live in. My wife goes back every year (sometimes more often) for training at McCrone Research Institute, and she hasn't reported any sort of Escape from New York-type urban apocalypse that the article you have cited seems to make out the city to be under. The article cites some copious statistics to make its case, including population declines, all of which could be true, but I'm not sure it effectively makes the case that the lower population necessarily indicates a city in true economic decline. Maybe all those half-million-dollar condos I witnessed going up have reverted to slums in the past decade, but if you want a real picture of home prices in Chicago and Detroit, look at these two maps: Chicago and Detroit. I'm not sure they need a lot of explanation. For comparison, the median home price for the entire midwest region was $136,400 as of July 6, 2011. By that metric, considering that prices in Chicago are almost half again as big as that number, while Detroit's are about 1/3 of that number says a lot about the economic health of the two cities. The demise of Chicago is likely being highly exagerated by the article you cited... --Jayron32 05:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks bro. Not to go off topic, but I have to admit I laughed a bit when I saw you said "s**thole." Willminator (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One other advantage to a city with a declining population is fewer traffic jams (although construction crews do their best to create traffic jams, by closing all but one lane for months before and after any actual work). StuRat (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random capitalization

I was reading up on the USA Constitution and was wondering why random words are capitalized in the text, such as: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Any ideas? -- Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.85.199.241 (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the 18th century it was common to capitalise all nouns, as is the case in German now. It went out of style in the 19th century and I would be interested to read when and why. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was fun to read the capitalized words as indicators of verbal emphasis. I wonder if that holds any water: sure, "the common defence" is important enough to bear mention in a nation's Constitution, but what we're really doing with this newfangled document is to establish Justice-with-a-capital-J! A handy cheat sheet passed with love from Jefferson down to future high school students (i.e. his Posterity). ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 18:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{[ec}}I'm pretty sure that particular usage died out very soon after the Constitution was written; by the early-to-mid 1800's many American authors were devoloping a more modern approach to capitalization, for example the works of people like Emily Dickinson and the Transcendentalist authors (Thoreau, Emerson, Hawthorne, etc.) don't show the capitalization convention shown in the constitution. Here is Ralph Waldo Emerson's Essays: First Series, published in 1841: [6]. Compare to Susanna Rowson's novel Charlotte Temple published 50 years before, in 1791 [7]. It doesn't capitalize every noun, but you can see some strange capitalizations like in the Constitution (the phrase "Tale of Truth", for example, or the word "Fancy"). It seems the modern capitalization convention developed in sometime between those two works. Checking Washington Irving's work The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, published smack between the other two works, in 1820, we find a completely modern capitalization as well: [8]. So that narrows it down even more; it most definately changed sometime around the turn of the 19th century. As to why it happened, my suspicion is that it occured due to the influence of the great dictionary writers like Noah Webster, which is really when the modern American form of English took shape as distinct from the British forms. No definitive proof of that, however. --Jayron32 18:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I suspect the behaviour of editors, publishers and printers is more significant than the behaviour of authors. I wonder whether the USA was first in adopting the present convention or whether Britain was, or whether the change happened at the same time in both countries.

It seems the French came first. At least from a quick browse of 17th and 18th century French books on Google Books, it is obvious that they did not capitalise nouns in French. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above posters wondered which country first adopted non-capitalization in English, not in some other language... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that those Project Guttenberg pages reflect the capitalization of the first edition of the works? If the works were reprinted later in the 19th or 20th century, things like capitalization would probably have been editorially emended, and if the PG version is taken from one of those, then of course it will show a more modern editorial style. Pais (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though Google Ngrams can be problematic for periods earlier than the 19th century, I thought this graph and this one were in particular interesting. See also this one. These would suggest that it was something that was quite common in the early 17th century but by 1776 was definitely a waning practice. Perhaps they were intending to invoke a Lofty and Older period. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you mean the early 18th century? Actually, extending your graphs back to 1600 suggests that capitalization of nouns was popular only for the first half of the 18th century, while in the 17th century they rather used the present-day non-capitalization... Your explanation for the founders' old-fashioned language use makes sense, in any case.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which U.S. officials could propose a two bracket income tax only treaty?

Which authorities in the U.S. executive branch (and Senate? e.g. Carl Levin[9]) have the authority to propose a multilateral treaty converting tax systems from sales and property taxes to two bracket income taxes only? Would such a proposal work better as an amendment to an existing tax treaty than as a new treaty? 99.24.223.58 (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can propose a treaty. Only the executive branch can negotiate a treaty. In principle such a negotiation can be carried out by anybody empowered by the president to do so. The resulting treaty would be subject to Advice and Consent by the Senate -- I suspect though that because of the fiscal implications the House of Representatives would also have to agree in some way. Looie496 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that there were specific official(s) in the State, Commerce, or other executive departments whose job responsibility includes tax treaty negotiations. I understand that the president might need to approve such proposals, but I wonder, for example, if a cabinet secretary or one of their designees could begin such negotiations without prior explicit presidential approval. Have citizen diplomats ever initiated treaty negotiations? 99.24.223.58 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any official negotiation needs to be authorized by the president. It is always possible to have preliminary unofficial negotiations, which can be conducted by anybody, but they would only be discussions and wouldn't imply any formal commitment. Diplomats in general are very wary about negotiating with people who don't have the authority to reach a binding agreement. Looie496 (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the appropriate point of contact would be Robert Hormats. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

what's the best way to deal with a socipath

I am closing this discussion. The Reference Desk is not the place for personal advice. Please contact the appropriate authorities and/or professionals for information and guidance. Neutrality^talk 22:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

say a sociopath who had been a vague acquaintance - and not a good one - has just beaten you up severely. what's the best course of action for optimizing the rest of your life? (Not asking for legal advice: obviously you can have them thrown in jail and go through a legal process or whatever: how does that help you?) Is is just cutting off contact with them entirely, etc? Thanks. 188.222.102.201 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word sociopath is so widely misused that I am not willing to make a guess at what you mean by it. Looie496 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

take hannibal lector. 188.222.102.201 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting them to the police keeps them from doing it to others (or at least making it clear they have that record). If they did it to you, they'll likely do it to others. If someone had reported them before they beat you up, they might not have done it. And of course there's no reason they couldn't come back and haunt you in the future — unless they know that messing with you will call down the law on them. So those are a few good reasons to think that talking to the police would be a good idea, all other factors ignored. Of course, I know that in real life things can be complicated, but unless there's some really compelling reason not to report them, you probably ought to.

As for yourself — consider talking to a professional. Getting severely attacked by another human being is a traumatic experience. You shouldn't try to hash it out on your own. Obviously you're not trying to do that — you're at least asking on here, which shows you recognize that it's beyond your own ability to cope with. But anonymous people online are a poor proxy for trained psychological assistance. A counselor can help you figure out what you need to do to "optimizing the rest of your life," with full knowledge about yourself, the event in question, the attacker, and "your life," about which we know absolutely nothing. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mr. 98. You need to explain it to someone. Either someone you know well, or a professional. Just feel free to see your doctor and explain it, and ask to be referred to a specialist. Or tell a friend, you can keep the details anonymous. Telling us online is only the very first step. If you have no idea at all who to contact next, go to Samaritans who are always there. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

guys, take hannibal lector as your example. if you realize hannibal lector is nonfictional and in your circle, and has hurt you but only some modest extent (say punched you in the gut, whatever, nothing you can't shrug off), then what is the best next step? 188.222.102.201 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has just battered you, the criminal justice system needs to know about it so that it can be prevented from happening again. That helps you directly because if it does happen again you are more likely than most to also be a subsequent victim of an even worse beating. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am always dubious about stories where the facts are stated so ambiguously. We have now gone from "beaten you up severely" to "hurt you but only to some modest extent". What is it that actually happened? Did your little brother shove you? (Sorry for being so suspicious; maybe I've watched Judge Judy too much.) Looie496 (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know what will PREVENT things from happening. Obviously everything is a question of interpretation of intent, etc. If your INTERPRETATION is that the person who has just hurt you has the personality of Hannibal Lector, what's the best way to handle this interaction? (The first, "beaten up severely" is the actual example, with the second one -- hurt you but only to some modest extent" being a hypotehtical. BUt let's be clear: compared to getting butchered and eaten by Lector, "beaten up severely" is mild -- it goes away.). The question is, if it does go away, how do you best handle the interaction going forward? (If your judgment is it could happen again at any time.) 188.222.102.201 (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desks can't give you legal or medical advice. Similarly, you might find yourself unable to support a claim that someone has the personality of a fictional sociopathic serial killer without reliable independent sources agreeing with the diagnosis. Therefore, consult with a qualified medical or legal professional about the proper way to respond. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, the reference desk is not the correct place to ask for advice. Of any kind. At all. Even if it isn't medical or legal advice. If you read the header, it says "if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere" If you want advice, find someone you trust (a parent, teacher, counselor, etc.) Random strangers on the internet, like me, are unreliable and should not be trusted with matters as serious as this. --Jayron32 22:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to ask about what to call a color, or a plant or animal, and sometimes some kinds of rocks, but you may not ask whether you are allowed to paint or throw rocks at the person next to you. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really suspect he's a potential serial killer, then stay the heck away. If he shows up where you are, leave. If he stalks you, change your phone number, move, change your name, etc. I'm rather skeptical about police doing anything other than escalate the conflict, unless you have evidence of a serious crime. StuRat (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember who we are: we are a bunch of men and women, and possibly a few kids, sitting around answering peoples' questions, and the questions we field tend to be information requests, along the lines of, for example "What is this saint in the pictured statue?" We do not typically handle this kind of request though I'm glad you came to someone), and are certainly not qualified to give advice on the matter. Even if we have legal advisors and councillors in our ranks (and I have no reason to suspect that any of us who have answered are), we couldn't ethically give you the advice you seek, as we don't know any of the details, and frankly couldn't get much of a better grasp on it even if you wrote pages on it (not to mention that giving that sort of advice is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy). Quite simply, the only thing we can really say is to go seek qualified help, such as a councillor, who would then be able to give you advice on how to proceed (my grandmother works with these kinds of situations). I wish you the best of luck, and I hope that your issues are resolved. The one thing that I will say, in all seriousness, is that if you happen to be a woman, and the attacker happens to be a man (or vice versa), do NOT hesitate to go to the councillor, as soon as practical (and I strongly think that it would be good to consider it anyways). In fact, if you couldn't get in with a councillor, then I would consider other options (staying with family not related to the situation, or going to other authorities), until you can get in with a councillor. I say that not because you have indicated in any manner that that's the case (and nor do I ask you to indicate whether that was the case), but just because I personally feel like it was important enough to say. Also, ask yourself, if you are worried about it happening at anytime, will it ever go away if you ignore it? That's it, I'm already getting way to close to what would be appropriate to say here. Falconus^{p t c} 02:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that this thread hasn't been deleted as legal advice and more. That being said, File a police report, acquire whatever weapons of self defense you can legally and responsibly use, and move away from the suspected psychopath as fact as you can! And stop wsting possibly life-saving time asking non-experts for non-help!μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC) I normalized the font size in your post and hope you don't mind. Good advice does not become better by shouting. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there ANY colleges in the world with bidet-seats in the restrooms?

A bidet-integrated toilet seat, also known as Washlets, bidet-seats, and Kohler Numis too, depending on branding, region, etc.

I haven't seen a college that has toilets with those futuristic amenities. Would anyone happen to know offhand? If so, would you please back it up with photo links? Thanks. --70.179.165.67 (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. We've been having a chat over at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk about questions that are probably US-centric (in this case in use of language), but we can't be sure. There's also another chat up above (under July 13) discussing what a college is. To constructively answer this question, we really need more information. For starters, what do you mean by college? HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would start with Japan and France.AerobicFox (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do we have pictures? --70.179.165.67 (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a perusal of the OP's contribs shows a pattern that looks a lot like trolling. Looie496 (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree there. Uninformed possibly but I'm not convinced they aren't bona fide. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suspect naive, an insular background, but learning, not trolling. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the analysis, doc. Do me! 188.222.102.201 (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Washlets and comparable devices are expensive and would be vulnerable to misuse and vandalism that is common in public facilities. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rare or non-existent in French educational establishments. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the query is a bit ambigous. Does it refer to the school building themselves or to campus housing? Manual bidets are common places across Arab world, and housing of decent standard is likely to have one. Slightly less likely in public bathrooms. The integrated bidet I've only seen once though. It isn't very futuristic to be honest (in this case it was definately not new), rather impractical compared to manual bidets. --Soman (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

heraldry

I just came from the 'Left Handedness' page and jumped to the 'Heraldry' page, and noted that I can find no reference to the Left side of an Heraldic shield being called the 'Sinister' side, and the right side being the 'Dexter' side. is this out of use now? or just an omission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.208.215 (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an omission, since this is indeed still the standard heraldic terminology, although it might be translated to 'left' and 'right' for the benefit of those unversed in blazonry. Of course, it's important to remember (as the OP doubtless knows but others reading this RefDesk may not) that the left and right in question are those of the person notionally holding/wearing the shield/helm/whatever, who is normally facing the beholder, so for a depiction on the page (for example) the 'Sinister' side is on the right as the reader looks at it and the 'Dexter' is on the left. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.152 (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We even have an article: Dexter and sinister. When I get a chance, it shouldn't be to difficult to put a link from the Heraldry page to it - unless somebody beats me to it! Alansplodge (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now inserted in Heraldry#Marshalling. Alansplodge (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical technology and world regions

Many centuries ago the technology of the Chinese and the East was better than that of Europe. 1) When was the last date at which they were roughly equal? 2) Why did eastern technology stagnate while European technology went roaring ahead? 92.24.138.48 (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant article on this is Great Divergence. The general consensus is that Europe and China were roughly equal until the late 17th century (the decades running up to 1700 or so).

There are a lot of theories about why. IMO the most compelling one is that in China was in a high level equilibrium trap — it had things too good for too long. There was a relatively higher degree of political homogeneity in 16th and 17th China than in Europe — less war, less strife, fewer political entities competing for resources and power. Many of the technological, financial, and political revolutions in Europe in the 17th-18th centuries (all of which were very much connected to each other — you can't separate the technology out as an independent variable) happened because it was a period of great uncertainty, fear, and need for innovation. The financial revolution happened because England and the Netherlands couldn't compete against the raw resources of Louis XIV; the political revolutions came out of the endless wars over religion in Europe; the technological revolutions happened in part because of various schemes for financing such developments by the state, and the creation and fostering of institutions (e.g. the Royal Society, private enterprises) that could evaluate and disseminate such information. I'm not sure you have anything comparable in China at that period. This explanation simplifies things a bit, perhaps to a dangerous degree, but I do think it has an inkling of plausibility to it, with regards at least to why Europe ended up the way it did, if not completely explaining why China didn't go on a different path. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Europeans developed draughting and the Chinese used either writing or two-dimensional drawing. When the Chinese saw projection drawing in European books or manuscripts they didn't see the benefit of draughting. The Chinese were slow to adopt new ideas from outside their culture.
Sleigh (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Median-average world standard of living

What is the current median-average standard of living for the world? As well as income, what material things does a world median standard of living give, such as having electricity, piped water, etc? Has the median standard of living changed much since the start of the 20th. century or more recently? 92.28.255.228 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard of living is not a number, so it does not have a median. If you focus on something that is a number, such as income, the finding will be that the median is very low, because of the huge numbers of very poor people in countries like India, Pakistan, China, and sub-Saharan Africa. Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be a number to have a median, it just needs to be ordered. As long as you can come up with a definition that allows you to look at two people and say which of them has the higher standard of living, then there is a well-defined median. There is no single accepted way of saying who has a higher standard of living than who, but there are numerous attempts at doing so. Income, measured by purchasing power parity, is one simple way of doing it. According to our article, Poverty, the World Bank estimated that 2.7 billion people were living on less than $2 a day in 2001. The world population was just over 6 billion then, so that was almost half. That puts median income at just over $2/day. It's a little difficult to convert that to standard of living, since some people have very little money but still live fairly well because they grow their own food, but I think it's clear that the median standard of living is going to be pretty low. --Tango (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Development Index is a composite metric that measures human development, which is not necessarily the same as standard of living or quality of life, but may approximate it. It is on a scale from zero to one. Neutrality^talk 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to bits I've found around the web, a majority of the world's households have access to both electricity and running water (though large minorities lack either or both). Based purely on anecdotal experience traveling on different continents, I think the median standard of living involves manual labor, travel on bicycle, on foot, or by bus, starchy food and little meat to eat, and television in the evening. Marco polo (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What then would be the median average country in the world, in terms of standard of living? It would be nice to be able to get an idea of what conditions the median average human lives in in 2011 and before. 92.24.179.33 (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "median average country" means you calculate the average standard of living within a country, and take the median of all countries. There is no such thing as the median average person, although you could take the median of all people within the median average country, which would be the median-median-average person-country. I really think if you just want a feel for what a typical person is going through, Marco Polo's answer is the best, since he has experience in this field, and has been giving reliable answers for a long time on subjects like this. I'm curious about them having tv in the evening - do I suppose it's most probably a small box in the living room, frequently going on the blink, permanently tuned to soapies? It's been emotional (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should prefer a well referenced answer... My answer shows that the median person is probably on a little over $2/day, so let's see what that really means. A little googling finds this article which says that someone living on $2/day in rural India (which is probably reasonably representative) can easily feed and clothe themselves and their family, but struggles for clean water, good education and healthcare. It doesn't mention electricity. This site says 78.9% of the world has access to electricity. Since that is over 50%, we would expect the median person to have it (it seems likely that access to electricity is correlated fairly strongly with standard of living). If they have electricity, there's a reasonably chance they have television. --Tango (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to have linked all the sites that I looked at. According to this site, the global median income is $2.33 a day. Now, a caution about this figure is that it does not take into account the food that people grow for themselves or the services they exchange with others without exchanging money. Especially in poor countries and in poor households, a fair percentage of economic activity takes place outside of the cash economy. A second factor to consider is that a majority of the world's population now lives in urban areas. So the "median" person would live in a poor neighborhood, probably on the growing outskirts of one of the developing world's cities. In these places access to electricity and running water is less difficult than in poor rural areas (which is one reason why rural populations are migrating to cities). Marco polo (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it would be better or worse than living in one of the favelas in Rio, Brazil? They have been shown on tv, so I find them easier to picture. I imagine that other shanty towns around the world are similar, although on the other hand the Rio favelas look more substantially built than what I would expect other shanty towns to have, and may have sewers. 2.97.209.26 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10th anniversary of 9/11

What events are being planned, in New York City and elsewhere in the United States, to mark the 10th anniversary of 9/11? Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks only mentions the unveiling of a new memorial in New Jersey. I feel sure there must be more planned than this. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 21:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A list can be found here. Perhaps someone could add them to the WP page? Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MILITARY

What country has the strongest militaryLadiloni (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The United States, by a huge margin. Looie496 (talk)

The US accounts for about 43% of total worldwide military expenditures: List of countries by military expenditures. (See also List of countries by level of military equipment). China, though, has the highest number of active duty troops: List of countries by number of troops. WikiDao ☯ 22:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the US spending 43% of the world's war budget related to the US being broke? Edison (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cause and effect? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah... while the US military budget is disproportionately large in comparison to the rest of the world, that has little to do with the debt. Even if the US completely shut down its military, it would still be going broke. To put some numbers on this... according to our article on the Military budget of the United States the US allocated $663.8 billion for the military. According to our article on the United States public debt is $14.46 trillion. To translate this into amounts we can all understand, let's knock off a few zeros.... say the US owes its credit card company $14.46 (fourteen dollars and forty six cents). Cutting the military will save $0.66 ... If the US applies this savings to the debt, the US would now owe $13.80. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little more complicated than that. First, we're talking about historical trends here, and indeed, military spending is a huge reason behind the current level of debt. That doesn't necessarily mean that getting rid of it tomorrow will end the debt tomorrow, any more than it means cutting up an existing credit card destroys the debt you've put on that card previously. Second, the defense budget does represent a significant percentage of the total budget. (A nice visualization here.) Again, it's not everything, but it's a pretty significant hunk — money that is not going to pay back past debts, money that is increasing rather than decreasing the deficit. So no, nobody is saying that if you got rid of defense tomorrow, you'd end the debt. But I think a lot of people are saying that US defense spending has made and continues to make a serious contribution to the level of debt the country is in. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... I was mostly responding to Andy's comment about "cause and effect". The wars the US has been fighting over the last 10 years have certainly contributed to the debt... but so has entitlement spending, the loss of revenue due to the recession, and a host of other (arguably more significant) factors. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing an annual figure to a cumulative figure, which makes no sense. You don't want to compare defence spending to the debt, you want to compare it to the deficit. The US deficit is currently about $1.5tn, so completely eliminating defence spending would cut the deficit by more than a third. There is no need for a country to pay off its debts, really. The figure economists usually look at is debt as a percentage of GDP, so if a country can grow its economy faster than its debt grows, then it is doing well. Halving the deficit would go a long way to allowing the US to reach that goal (although it wouldn't be enough - a deficit of $0.9tn or so would still grow the debt by about 6% a year, which would be a very optimistic economic growth forecast). --Tango (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note I put a question mark at the end of my earlier post - though it did seem to be an obvious response. Clearly, military expenditure isn't the only reason for the level of debt, but it is nevertheless a significant contributing factor - and one that has been a drain on the U.S. economy for some considerable time. It is a mistake to just look at it in terms of 'wars the U.S. has been fighting over the last 10 years' though, because much of it has been due to being spent preparing for wars that have never been fought - often indeed, in preparation for 'wars' with an enemy that doesn't exist. The 'Military-Industrial Complex' (lovely phrase) has a long history of inventing imaginary foes to 'justify' expenditue of huge sums of taxpayers money on technology that turns out to be utterly useless by the time it is developed. Still, the U.S. can take comfort in the fact that it isn't alone in this - the UK is currently building two new aircraft carriers, for which we won't have any aircraft! Somehow, this lunacy is described as 'defence' expenditure. I suspect one reason why goverments are so keen to spend money on such projects is the sense of importance it gives the politicians - rather than arguing with low-grade civil servants over the paper-clip budget, they get to be shown round shiny new hardware, and saluted by an Admiral. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there are enemies that really do exist (remember 9/11?)... so, realistically, the US is not about to get rid of all defense spending. That does not mean it can't (or shouldn't) spend its defense budget more wisely... but it is going to have to have a military budget. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if 10% of the defense budget is spend effectively at all, and likewise, be surprised if 10% of that 10% are applicable to 9/11 type threats (and that even ignoring the fact that non-military options probably are a lot more effective for terrorist-style threats than YANOFAs). (Yet Another New Overpriced Fighter Aircraft). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the original question, while the United States probably still has the world's strongest military, it's not clear that it is the strongest by "a huge margin". Certainly, its military spending is the highest by a huge margin, but adjusted for purchasing power parity the US military spending has less of a margin over Chinese military spending, which is rising rapidly. It is appropriate to use purchasing power parity for this comparison, because Chinese wages and wholesale prices for comparable manufactured goods are considerably lower than US wages and prices for goods manufactured in the United States (as US military materiel overwhelmingly is). Purchasing power parity, if anything, probably understates relative prices, since prices for materiel sourced from US defense contractors are skewed upward by a lack of competitive bidding, politically awarded padded contracts, and very high wages for engineers and executives in defense contracting firms. Finally, Chinese military spending has been growing more rapidly than that of the US, as has the technological sophistication of Chinese military hardware. Therefore, while the US almost certainly retains a lead over China militarily, that lead is frequently overstated and steadily shrinking. Marco polo (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Marco polo to some extent, but while the Chinese are rapidly expanding their armed forces they are still a great distance from the US in terms of power projection. Currently China possesses almost no ability to engage in warfare outside of its own borders. Its last military adventure (against Vietnam, a much smaller nation) being a pretty serious disaster. This list is very telling regarding power projection parity: List of aircraft carriers by country. Operating and defending an aircraft carrier in hostile waters is enormously expensive and complex, it is also a required if a nation is to use its armed forces outside of its immediate sphere. --Daniel 22:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that China does not have much capacity for power projection. At present, their military focus seems limited to defending their own borders and potentially intervening in their immediate neighborhood of East and Southeast Asia and perhaps the Himalayas. However, according to this article, China has developed the capacity to destroy any US aircraft carrier that comes within range of its missiles designed for that purpose, a range that extends beyond Taiwan and that would limit the ability of the US to intervene in any conflict close to Taiwan. If the United States cannot use aircraft carriers against its chief potential adversary, the usefulness of aircraft carriers for power projection is limited. No doubt, the US would have a similar capability against Chinese aircraft carriers, which might explain why the Chinese have not squandered money on them. Marco polo (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The European countries apparently are strained to the limit with a very limited effort against Qadaffi. Were they that much better armed when NATO was supposed to be able to halt or delay and conventional Soviet block attack on Europe? Now the UK is reducing their army to the smallest since the 19th century: [10]. Would that the US taxpayers only had to support an 1890's military establishment. Edison (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statistic for the US military budget is more than a little misleading - as the article says, it doesn't cover DOE budget for nuclear weapons research and maintenance, and more to the point, it doesn't cover the ongoing medical and pension costs of war. Wnt (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

was it an american war

who fought the spanish inquisition — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoamchtoothMMX (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish Inquisition was not a war. Looie496 (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor were any Americans involved in it. Except perhaps that the Spanish church's virulent attitude to all who fell short of its standards also applied to the native people of the New World, who were abominably treated. This could be thought of as an extension of the Inquisition. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can no longer see a question like this without thinking of the Monty Python version. Looie496 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are looking for the Spanish-American War? 80.187.151.104 (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question. Apparently there's a lot of stuff out there about the horrors of the Inquisition in the New World, e.g. [11]. Much is based on the writing of Bartolome de las Casas. I'm seeing little information about whether or how the Indians fought back, though. Wnt (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

Lips on Characters in Japanese Manga/Anime

I was discussing Japanese manga and anime with a friend and he asked me a question. He said he'd noticed that bad guys tend to have huge lips, then asked me why. I do admit, I had seen them before many a time, but never really thought to ask anyone. Does anyone know? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume it is just convention... so readers know "this is a bad guy". Similar to the old Hollywood convention of bad guys in westerns wear black hats. Blueboar (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Japanese people generally do not have thick lips, compare this with this. There is nothing new about demeaning stereotypes. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image verifications

Can anybody tell me if this image called Queen Kapiolani's House is the exact same image as Ainahau - Kaiulani's House.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking. They're different photographs of what appears to be the same house. APL (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm guessing. They look the same so the book that I got the first image from is wrong in identifying the occupant of the house.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody decipher what this image is saying? I get some of it but can't read the handwriting very well. Also is it an authentic signature?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've got most of it already on the image page. The first line says "I was sick and ye visited me." --Viennese Waltz 08:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ye? Really? What is the letter before Damien and the loop in between Damien and Veuster

The letter before Damien is almost certainly a J. As our article says, his given name was Jozef. Not sure about the other one. --Viennese Waltz 08:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like "I was Sick and ye visited me / J Damien "*" Veuster / Kalavao Moolokai Dec, 20th 1888" to me. The "*" might be @ or & or a letter like D or L or E. 92.24.130.36 (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks exactly like the "d" on the line above. Father Damien says he was original "Jozef De Veuster". (The source quotes for his original name spells it "de Veuster")., --ColinFine (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also can someone tell me what the faded print in this image say?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that it says "Catholic Church" above the roof, and at the bottom it says "View of Gofit cloister....". 2.97.220.86 (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is art in paint?

why is art in paint cant it be with pople love — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.130.182 (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a title. I think the OP means: "Why is art in paint? Why cannot it be with people's love?" 92.24.130.36 (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple songs, poems, and written works, including a 3 volume poem by Ovid, on "The Art of Love." Love seems to be more an artform than a scientific or engineering area. ("Introductory engineering principles of love, with differential equations?" I think not. Edison (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the question is that art allegedly cannot be "with pople love". Citation required. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is: Why is art made with paint—can't art be made with people's love? In other words—why can't the "material" that art is made with be people's love? Or, to state it again—can't love be the material of art? Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid says it can be. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's hard to put love in a frame and sell it to collectors. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh sentence because of Royal connection?

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14150800 1) Am I correct in thinking that if Mr and Mrs Bloggs had been in the nearby car, and not Mr and Mrs Windsor, then he would have only have got a few weeks of Community Service? 2) What other crimes would get a sixteen month prison sentence? 92.24.130.36 (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking and entering? Theft? According to the article, the guy also kicked in a store window and stole a mannequin leg. Blueboar (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A key factor in sentencing is the convict's previous criminal record. The couple of articles I've just skimmed don't mention whether he has a previous criminal record or not, but if he does then that could easily explain the severity of the sentence. --Tango (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only an opinion but a major factor was that he climbed up the The Cenotaph which didnt go down well with the general public rather than the royal connection, He claimed he had not realised the significance of the memorial - an excuse the judge rejected. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An understandable rejection: this muggins does study history at Cambridge. I doubt being off his face on acid and Valium held much clout as an excuse. A comparable case is that of student Philip Laing, who was hauled up in front of a judge in 2009 for urinating against a war memorial while drunk. According to our article, outraging public decency can carry an unlimited custodial sentence or unlimited fine. Brammers (talk/c) 15:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was he protesting college fees actually? Money should not been an issue here....

I'm tempted to wonder how long it will be before the judge is knighted for services to Royalty. (Hope airing that thought won't bring the judicial mallet down on me). 2.101.4.118 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking is free and neither necessarily "correct" nor "incorrect", but the OP's thought no. 1) can only be speculation. Having only the linked article to go on, I find the judge's expressed outrage at Gilmour's disrespect of war dead disproportionate to his mild acceptance that Gilmour's behaviour was not part of violent disorder. Man doses self into inebriated frenzy on mixture of alcohol, valium and illegal narcotic and goes on rampage of destruction, theft, vandalism and attempted assault seems to sum it up. The sentence of 16 months housing at Her Majesty's expense is unremarkable but a more economical and effective lesson would be that practised in Singapore, as can be attested by Michael P. Fay whose bottom may help him think twice before vandalising cars again. Add strokes for Gilmour because his hair is too long, doubtless some new pop fad that will go over. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the accused had read our article on The Cenotaph, Whitehall, he might indeed have been unaware that it is our national war memorial, because it doesn't actually mention the fact. Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guilty Gilmour could read the dates of WW1 and WW2 plus "The Glorious Dead" on the memorial. Uniformed service personnel salute the Cenotaph every year on Remembrance Sunday, a ceremony televised each year by the BBC since 1946. WP:DUCK. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. My comment was a tongue-in-cheek of saying that the intro to the page doesn't point out what it's for. Alansplodge (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now tweaked that article's text a little. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military personnel in uniform salute the Cenotaph every time they pass it. Not just once a year.

ALR (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's an element of "pour encourager les autres" about it. It doesn't matter how much money one has, by the way, it is possible to feel solidarity with people whose life experiences are not yours! --TammyMoet (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to (1) is a definite "no". He pleaded guilty to violent disorder, which almost always results in a lengthy custodial sentence. (It's the next step down from riot in the catalogue of English public order offences.) A sentence of 32 months was given to Edward Woollard - the 18-year-old who threw a fire extinguisher off a building - for the same offence. The answer to (2) is extremely broad, as all sorts of offences might merit a sentence of that length, when the circumstances of the offence and the history of the offender are taken into account. But as a guide, you could look at various sentencing guidelines to get a basic idea. (Bear in mind that offenders receive a discount for a guilty plea, so Mr Gilmour's sentence of 16 months reflects a notional sentence after a trial of about 2 years.) Proteus (Talk) 18:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought plea bargaining didn't happen in the UK? It was proposed recently by Kenneth Clarke, but because of public opinion being against it, was dropped by David Cameron. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a plea bargain, it's a pretty much automatic discount for anyone who pleads guilty. The earlier you plead guilty, the more discount you get (a third for a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity down to a tenth for a guilty plea on the day of trial; in fact there's a guideline specifically addressing the various levels on the page I linked to earlier). What was proposed by Ken Clarke was an increase in the greatest discount from a third to a half, and it was that that caused a public outcry (mainly, it would seem, from people who didn't realise that it was a proposed alteration to a system that already exists rather than a brand new policy - as usual, the British media's reporting on the criminal justice system was absolutely useless). Proteus (Talk) 20:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a woman was prosecuted for urinating on a war memorial recently. How long did she get? 2.97.209.26 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Lewis is one, but the crime seems oddly common. She was sentenced to a 15 month suspended sentence. [12].--Kateshortforbob _talk 09:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading what she did seems little different than what Gilmour did, yet she only got a suspened sentence. 92.28.249.93 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was convicted of violent disorder. Violence usually carries a greater sentence that something that is simply offensive. --Tango (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis kicked a police officer twice - I'd call that violent. But Gilmour did not appear to direct any violence against any person. He did throw a bin at a car, kick a window in, and fool around on a war memorial, but he did not assault anyone. 2.101.5.83 (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By his plea, Mr Gilmour accepted that he (and at least two others) "used or threatened unlawful violence" and that his conduct (taken together with that of the two or more others) was "such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety". And it seems that Ms Lewis pleaded guilty to assaulting a constable, which has a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment (compared to the maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment for violent disorder). The main sentence in her case was for outraging public decency. Proteus (Talk) 12:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Penny, aka @pennyred, is a young documenter of the protests. She met Gilmour the night before, and clocked him as trouble. She's written up her impressions of him, and the sentence, for the New Statesman: Does Charlie Gilmour really deserve a 16 month prison service?".

I have every reason to consider Charlie Gilmour a prize dickhead. But 16 months? Really? Sixteen months for going on a bender and attempting to damage some property? Sixteen months for setting fire to some newspaper and jumping on the bonnet of a car? Charlie Gilmour is many things, but he's not dangerous, unless you happen to be a bottle of Gordon's Gin. ...Gilmour is, of course, the ideal tabloid scapegoat for those who would prefer to believe that all young people involved in political struggle are spoilt, drug-addled and reckless. ...While Gilmour was not sentenced for his actions at the Cenotaph, he was told that his actions were 'reprehensible', and that the eminence of the occupants of the car had been taken into account. So it's not about throwing a rubbish bin at a Roller - it's about throwing a rubbish bin at a convoy containing the heir to the throne. In swinging off the Cenotaph, he broke the unspoken rules of the King-and-Country brigade. 'You showed disrespect to those who made the ultimate sacrifice defending this country," said Judge Price, who last week sent 20-year-old Frank Fernie to jail for a year for throwing sticks at the TUC demonstration in March.

Also, I think no one above has commented on who the perp is: he is the adopted son of Pink Floyd guitarist Dave Gilmour, who got onto the Sunday Times Rich List singing "We don't need no education". BrainyBabe (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...and that the eminence of the occupants of the car had been taken into account". So if that is true he did get a harsh sentence because it was Mr and Mrs Windsor. Have there been any studies about establishment people being treated favourably and more respectfully by justice and the government? That is certainly my experience from living in poor areas in the UK, where the police and local council seem uncaring about things they would have taken action on when I lived in a middle-class area. 92.29.124.89 (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Penny might have got one fact wrong: according to this intelligent article in The Independent, Gilmour "was sentenced for throwing a bin at a car carrying royal protection officers and for kicking the window of a nearby Top Shop store." (Emphasis mine.) The article also quotes the judge as saying, “I have to take into account that you have had many advantages which are denied to most young men who come before this court.” To cap it off, "the judge decided Gilmour's use of drugs were an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one and said the nature of the charges demanded “lengthy custody”". BrainyBabe (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were the Royal protection officers or their car identifiable as police officers, or were they in an unmarked car in civilian clothing? 92.24.191.2 (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toirdhealbhach Luineach Mac Neill Chonnalaigh O Neill

I have been looking through the relevant articles and cannot seem to work out where this one man came from. He is called a cousin of Hugh O'Neill, which would make him a grandson of Conn O'Neill, unless in this case cousin is used to refer to any more distant relative as well. However, this would make him quite a bit older than cousin Hugh, whose father is stated to be rather older than his own brother Shane O'Neill. Whilst the ages can sort of work, I am left wondering whether this is because either, the two men are not cousins, but instead uncle and nephew or second cousins or some such, or whether Hugh's father was quite old on having his son, or any other possibility. Oh yes, and two different articles give his date of abdication as 1593 and 1595, any ideas which is right?

79.66.110.165 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found Turlough Luineach O'Neill; would you please link to or cite the other article to which you refer? 99.24.223.58 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles I looked through would be the other members of his family mentioned above, which I have linked to. The other reference for his date of abdication was taken from that of Hugh O'Neill. 79.66.104.143 (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morality of religion

Is teaching children from a young age that religion is fact a type of brainwashing and indoctrination? As a young boy i used to attend sunday school. While there we were told all of these fantastic things about biblical figures and events such as the parting of the red sea and jesus walking on water. And as children everybody in the class was really excited and saying "wow did that really happen". And not once did our teacher say no its never been proven to have happened. Surely this is brainwashing of the worst kind and children should be left to make up their own mind? Just wondered if I'd gotten the wrong end of the stick or if others agree with me. But if you tell a child something for long enough then it sticks in their head. --Thanks, Hadseys 19:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is teaching children what you do not believe yourself "brainwashing", but teaching children what you do believe to be not brainwashing. You seem to be treating the situation as if your own personal moral standards are somehow "the right ones", and if people teach their own children some moral standard different from your own, it must be "brainwashing". That seems rather self-centered and prejudicial, no? --Jayron32 19:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you brought that up, as teaching children about things to do with their own culture (including religion) is part of their training in understanding that there's more to their world than just themselves. All education is "indoctrination" to some extent. If the OP doesn't want to get into a specific religion, maybe he could instead teach his kids about the cultural importance of religions: a common bond among people, with shared moral values, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telling children things are fact when actually they are belief is what the OP seem to be complaining about. Teaching science, if done properly, involves explaining the evidence and uncertainty. That's the big difference between education and indoctrination. --Tango (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To indoctrinate is "to teach with a biased, one-sided or uncritical ideology". To the extent that biblical and other legendary stories diverge from scientific fact or can't even be confirmed by historical sources, but are taught regardless, because they are believed to be the truth, they're indoctrination. Yet the word "indoctrinate" is usually only used of communists and their ilk, those who are on the "wrong side" of the ideological fence. The North Koreans' position that there is no God is no more or less scientifically provable than the West's position that there is one, yet one is indoctrination and the other is teaching our children decent Christian values. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communism's gods in general are Marx, Lenin, Mao, et al. North Korea's current god is Kim Jong-il. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In short, religion does get many exceptions from standards in general, it's just the way it is. It's a cultural thing. I've always mused, for instance, that teaching children that there's a boogieman under their bed that will kill them if they don't eat their peas would likely be mental abuse, even if it doesn't rise to the level that you could be arrested for it. On the other hand teaching children that if they disrespect their parents they'll be sent to a giant lake of fire to burn for all eternity that's considered not abuse, but a virtue. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even forgetting that fire and brimstone stuff, what about Santa Claus? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be mindful of the mixed message. Parents are more than capable of enrolling children in religious education and simultaneously communicating to them verbally or nonverbally, explicitly or implicitly, that the religious learning they will receive there is not the whole truth. Bus stop (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP might be interested in this clip. Belief in the immorality of religion - or, at least, the immorality of indoctrinating children in the unverified and unverifiable truth of religious beliefs - is commonplace among secular humanists. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secular humanism and atheism are also quasi-religious systems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite. But, is this really the place for this debate? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you brought it up. And your denial of the similarity is a good example of what I'm talking about. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are worse kinds of brainwashing. Taken as memes, religious superstitions are parasitic on human beings, but religious hygiene doctrine is in symbiosis. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? I don't understand the whole sentence. Bus stop (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the memetics article? Memes are ideas viewed as life forms. False superstitions are preying on human beings to various extents, but religious doctrines about not eating pork, for example, helped the Middle East avoid trichinosis. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need religious doctrines for that. Just cook the pork properly. Quest09 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't know anything about microbes. They observed people getting sick from eating scavengers (including hogs and shellfish) and concluded that those animals were "unclean". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could say that explanations of phenomena can be incorrect but beneficial even if they are incorrect. Bus stop (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like to call it, "Being right for the wrong reason." The right reasons, as well as how to prevent those problems, is now known. The main reason for keeping kosher, eating fish on Friday, etc., nowadays is simply "to remind yourself" that you're Jewish, Catholic, or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My response to the OP's question is "Yes", with the key word in the question being "fact". HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My response is... if you don't want your kids to be taught that Jesus performed miracles and Noah gathered animals in a boat... don't send them to Sunday School. It's not mandatory you know. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More troubling than the religion question, as such, is the notion that kids should decide for themselves whether they are going to be moral, ethical, etc. Those concepts do not necessarily arise naturally in kids - they have to be taught. Whether they're taught in a conventionally religious way or a "secular humanistic" way, their still needs to be a foundation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"More troubling than the religion question, as such, is the notion that kids should decide for themselves whether they are going to be moral, ethical, etc. Those concepts do not necessarily arise naturally in kids - they have to be taught". Really? Do you have any evidence to back up that somewhat dubious statement? It may take a great deal of effort to teach kids that X or Y is moral or ethical, but that may well be because in many cases, it isn't. On the other hand, kids seem entirely capable of understanding ethics from a surprisingly early age. Taking candy from a baby might be easy, but try to do it to a three-year-old without getting a lecture in morality... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Waaah, Ma, that man took my candy" doesn't exactly constitute a "lecture in morality". Unless the three-year-olds in your neck of the woods have advanced skills in polemics out of all proportion with their tender years. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you lack practical experience in the 'taking candy from babies' field ;-) Seriously though, I'd suggest that kids are born with at least the potential to develop morality/ethics on their own - otherwise, unless one is a Biblical fundamentalist, and one who thinks that 'morality' is an arbitrary set of rules at that, one has to ask why such concepts are so universal. Yes, what is seen as moral and/or ethical is very much culture-bound, but there does seem to be a common core of sorts - though exactly what this 'common core' is, is perhaps impossible to define exactly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft, I suspect you have somewhat limited experience in terms of children, child psychology and pedagogy. A 3 year old will indeed be very clear that it is 'unfair' when you take their sweets (unless they have been strongly taught otherwise), but they will be much less likely to consider it unfair if you steal sweets from another 3 year old and give the sweets to them. This isn't really morality. Children are cultural sponges, and will indoctrinate themselves with the prevailing culture to some extent. Most are naturally selfish to some degree, as is only to be expected, and they learn about morality and fairness from every interaction they have. Every child is indoctrinated: that's what culture is. A child who is not indoctrinated with principles of fairness and sharing and morality before they attend school will have a miserable time at school until they learn the basics from the other children. Children are not naturally moral, but they do naturally punish those who are unfair to them or those they like.

You are going to indoctrinate your children no matter what you do. You can either plan for this, and deliberately teach them the things you believe, or you can ignore it and leave them to absorb all the values you project, even the subconscious ones you'd rather not think about but which still inform your choices. There isn't a 'no indoctrination' option short of completely neglecting them (which simply indoctrinates them with a whole lot of unsavoury values about their value and how one should treat the small and helpless). 86.164.165.0 (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that religious instruction of children can take the form of indoctrination and brainwashing. Then again, there are many many other ways children are indoctrinated and brainwashed, in non-religious ways. Further, the degree of indoctrination and dogmatic insistence differs from sect to sect, even church to church. To take an extreme example (one I'm in favor of), Unitarianism church are *churches* and tend to have "religious instruction of children", but all the examples I've seen could hardly be called indoctrination or brainwashing. Also, there is an age for which fantastic fairy tale like stories, like about Santa Claus or even the Tooth Fairy, seem to me fitting for the mindset of young kids, so long as such fairy tales are not taken too far or for too long. Just as there is a risk in instructing children too firmly about religion, fairy tales, etc, there is can be a risk in instructing children to clearly distinguish "true" stories from "pretend" ones. Better, I think, to foster critical thinking, and let the truth or falsity of a particular tale up in the air, pending further evidence and thought. That, it seems to me, is more moral than either insisting on *truths* religious or otherwise. Pfly (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This from the culture that spends billions on tricking children into believing that there is a fat guy in a red suit with a white beard that sneaks down chimneys to leave gifts which he manufactured at a secret North Pole base? Googlemeister (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better than spending billions on tricking adults into believing that a fat guy in a military uniform is hiding weapons of mass destruction in the Iraqi desert, or that a skinny guy in pajamas poses a serious security threat to their country. Pais (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Present tense is inappropriate when referring to those two individuals. Googlemeister (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just piling on here: Children's social attitudes are formed mostly by their parents in most cases, and religion is only part of that. Most Americans believe, for example, that bringing in a second wife (at least without the consent of the first) is wrong, that it's inappropriate for cousins to marry, that it's wrong to kill someone in revenge, etc. These values are shared by the religious and the non-religious alike in America, but they are not held among some groups in the world. Children pick these things up from their environment. Children are always "indoctrinated" in this sense. And if you think that the parents of someone like Ellen Johnson didn't pass on their (ir)religious values to her, well, that would be silly. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Capital punishment in the United States, some 64% of Americans apparently do not believe it's wrong to kill someone in revenge. And William J. Murray seems to be a good counterexample to Ellen Johnson. Pais (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pais, you really like to paint with a broad brush don't you? There is more to the death penalty then simple revenge and trying to paint 160 million+ people as willing to kill people simplly for revenge is at best naive considering the 12 people who vote on that person's guilt were not themselves harmed and have no reason to desire revenge. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 people who vote on that person's guilt consider themselves as representing society at large and (in their minds) are taking revenge on society's behalf. Of course those 12 people are not, in fact, representative of American society as a whole, because anyone who belongs to the 36% opposed to the death penalty is not allowed to sit on the jury in capital punishment cases. (Way to stack the deck.) The jury is also carefully informed that if the law calls for the death penalty, they have to impose it, whether they like it or not (which considering jury nullification is a lie, but no one is permitted to tell them about the option of jury nullification). And no, there is nothing to the death penalty beyond revenge, except perhaps advancing politicians' careers. It doesn't serve as a deterrent, it doesn't achieve justice, it doesn't help survivors come to terms with the death of the victim, it doesn't do anything at all except satisfy peoples' basest, most barbaric "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" desire to kill someone they think deserves it. Pais (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does a very good job of ensuring that individual will never murder again, and unless you yourself are a survivor, how would you know it doesn't help wil coming to terms with the death of the victim? Additionally, what you call "stacking the deck" is actually the opposite. People on the jury do not have to claim to support it, just that they will keep an open mind about it rather then have 1 individual derail the entire thing based on their beliefs rather then facts in evidence. Googlemeister (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psych wards

I'm sure they are not like in One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest , and that the tendency is to put a non-dangerous (to himself or to others) patient into outpatient wards, but what is true about psych wards of films? Do they mix patients with unrelated mental illnesses? Do they hang out together in a common room all day long? Are they not allowed to go out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.79.148 (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "outpatient wards." If you are into outpatient care, you are not in a ward. The article Psychiatric_hospital#Types gives you an outlook, depending on the patient. Quest09 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assistive care facilities, often called halfway houses, ideally tailor each patient's treatment regime to their individual needs. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(OR here) Having been a patient in a psychiatric hospital recently, I can assure you that the scenes depicted in One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest are not accurate (although I can't speak for conditions at the time the film was made). Anyway, the facility I was in had several units based not on the type of mental illness per se, but on the amount of care needed. I was in the unit that gave patients the most independence. In that unit, we had patients with numerous different conditions. The treatment consisted of us having individual sessions with psychiatrists, social workers and others, as well as group therapy sessions, art and occupational therapy, and other interaction. Both individual and group treatments are recognized these days as essential parts of mental health treatment. In addition, there was a significant amount of unstructured time in which the patients were encouraged to interact with each other on their own. Even in the most loosely-controlled ward that I was in, we were not allowed out, and our time was strictly managed. From what I understand, the other units had more restrictions on patients' free time, and more structured settings, but I'm not 100% sure how they worked. — Michael J 23:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it more like It's_Kind_of_a_Funny_Story_(film)? What you describes matches some points in this film. It depicts a more humane psych ward, but also mixing patients. Maybe this film and the Cucckoos' one reflect the common practice at their time (2010 and 1975 respectively). (BTW, Michael, if you didn't watch It's_Kind_of_a_Funny_Story_(film), but are suffering from depression, you might want to do it.) 88.8.79.148 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with that film, but from the article it sounds like the same type of facility I was in. (I will have to find someplace nearby that has it for rental. Thank you for the suggestion.) — Michael J 23:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A psyche ward I'm familiar with has everyone from alcoholics to people so messed up they can't even dress themselves in it. They were all in the same milieu, although of course the treatment they received differed based on their condition. The privileges vary depending on what illness someone has and how much the staff can trust him not to hurt himself or others. Some patients can leave the grounds for several hours with a pass; some are allowed to wander the hospital grounds but that's it; some are restricted to the ward (which has an outdoor courtyard) and the most at-risk can't leave their rooms. This was a general hospital ward, not a dedicated psychiatric facility. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

Charles Xavier

In Marvel comics 616 continuity, how many times has Professor X regained the use of his legs and then been crippled again? --superioridad ^(discusión) 01:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Six. Looie496 (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of Jesus

A few days ago, I asked a question about Jesus' crucifixion, and was surprised that half the people who responded doubted Jesus' existence. Despite being an atheist, this is the first time I've heard/read someone claim that Jesus is wholly mystical. I always thought his existence was undisputed, even though details of his life, like his resurrection, are obviously not.

So my question is: how sure are historians that Jesus was a real person? Is the correct to say that the Pauline epistles is the only contemporary historical source that devotes more than 1 or 2 sentences to Jesus? Is there any evidence that the other apostles wrote of their experiences with Jesus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.16.144 (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to read Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus. In short, the problem with "prooving" Jesus's existance is that there was literally nothing written about him during his lifetime. There is no record of his existance that comes from the time when he lived. The earliest account of his life is probably the Gospel of Mark, written probably 30 years after Jesus died by someone who did not personally know Jesus, but rather was likely a chronicler of Simon Peter (i.e. he wrote down stuff Simon Peter told him). However, none of this actually denies whether he existed.--Jayron32 05:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "mythical" rather than "mystical". Pais (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is at least partially a matter of definition. It's almost certain that there was a Jesus (=Jeshua or Joshua, a very common name) in Palestine in the early first century. It's quite doubtful that he was born in Bethlehem, because it quite possibly didn't even exist at that time. The Christian version is probably an amalgaman on top of a real core (i.e. a Jewish itinerant preacher with a bunch of oriental and Greek mythology stuck on). When do you accept someone like that as "the Jesus"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About Bethlehem, I know of a theory that he could have been born in Bethlehem of Galilee. I also know of another theory that argues that the early Christians made the Bethlehem-birthplace-statement in an effort to use the prophecies of the Old Testament. Flamarande (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to consider is that historians are not necessarily interested in the question "did this person exist or not?". Historians aren't biographers. Their research questions would be more like "What were the belief systems of Jews in 1st century Palestine?" "What was the power relationship between the Roman administration and the Jewish religious authorities in Jerusalem?". Itsmejudith (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO most historians agree that a minor religious Jewish leader called Jesus existed around the 1st century AD. The Gospel of Mark (and other written records) is probably based upon some person. However his teachings, the claim that he was the son of the Abrahamic God, the manner of his death, all the miracles... who knows what really happened? These things are issues of individual faith. Flamarande (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would offer the small quibble that most historians would agree that there was probably a Jewish religious teacher named Yeshua or some such during the early first century whose followers were among the founders of Christianity. Since there is no undisputed and conclusive evidence that he existed (i.e., no evidence from impartial contemporary sources), I think that most historians would concede that we don't know for certain that such a man actually existed. However, I think most historians think the existence of such a man squares better with the historical record than the non-existence of such a man. On the other hand, I think that most secular historians are skeptical about the historical accuracy of some of the claims made by Christians about Jesus, such as his birth in Bethlehem, his death followed by resurrection, and so on. Marco polo (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that proving that there was a historical Jesus is like proving that there is a man called John in America ... there were a lot of them! -- Q Chris (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that some historians believe that Homer didn't write the Iliad and Odyssey after all; it was someone else by the same name. Pais (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had always thought Homer didn't write it down at all, it was an oral rendition that was recorded on paper by someone later. Googlemeister (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compose, then. It was a joke anyway, since "Homer" doesn't actually refer to an identifiable individual, but is rather a mathematical variable standing for "whoever composed the Iliad and Odyssey". Pais (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is certainly debatable. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 16:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just like last time, the one of relevant articles is the Jesus myth theory. It is certainly a minority viewpoint, but not a crazy-lunatic-fringe viewpoint. Buddy432 (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity had to come from somewhere, and considering that the earliest books of the NT are dated to the middle of the first century, it's hard to fathom the writers would have just made him up. On the other hand, skeptics would say that the age of Tiberius is well-attested, and you'd think that if someone was doing miracles someone else (other than the Gospel writers) would have noticed and written more than the few words Josephus is alleged to have written on the topic. So the most-likely scenario from a non-Christian perspective is that Jesus existed but the account of his life was embellished with stories already circulating in Judea, like Gabriel's Revelation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Company name

which company name when translated in English reads “Tiger-Leopard Limited”. Looks like it was named after its founders.Google and wiki searches did not yield any clues. Would appreciate any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.43.154 (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

from here -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Tiger-Leopard" is a common company name in China, but I don't think any of them have Indian operations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phone hacking

Why so much fuss is created when a non-government agency hacks phone which is of no danger to the persons who's phone is hacked? When the government regularly hacks phone of civilian population, which is really a danger and threat to the civilians, no fuss is seen. In countries like China, the government can at any time hack phone and arbitrarily arrest any person. In democratic countries like US, ESA pervasively monitor civilians. No outrage is seen in those cases. But a non-harmful hacking by a non-government agency creates so much fuss, why? --U8yol (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the state's monopoly on violence also extends to a monopoly on snooping. I think people would be pretty pissed off if a newspaper could apply to a judge and receive a search warrant for a private person's residence, too. Pais (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ESA do you think pervasively monitors civilians? Surely not the European Sociological Association? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I am talking about NSA. --U8yol (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! That makes more sense. Though I'd suggest that the Entertainment Software Association is probably also a prime candidate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of us non-US people, NSA = National Security Agency. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with the premise that there isn't a dustup when there are major human rights violations in other countries. Human rights in the People's Republic of China frequently are a source of major international criticism, especially basic democratic freedoms and liberties, such as rights of due process of law and rights to privacy. In the U.S. there was a lot of criticism over the USA PATRIOT Act which authorized expanded surveillance; large parts of it have been struck down by courts over the past several years, and when it does come up for reauthorization, it is a major political struggle. It's not as though people in the U.S. are gleefully supportive of being suveilled by their government unjustly. --Jayron32 16:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least in one case, it seems debatable that the hacking posed "no danger to the persons who's phone [was] hacked". It's been alleged that the hacking of Milly Dowler's voicemail wasn't just restricted to passive listening and that some messages were deleted, interfering with the police's search. 129.234.53.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'm curious if so much fuss would have been created if the scandal involved a left-wing newspaper. --U8yol (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not really the paper, but the people behind it. And yes, I think if some other set of journalists had been hacking the phones of bereved families, soldiers, politicians, missing children (and deleting their messages, so people think they're still alive!) etc, then the Sun and the News of the World would have been calling for lynch mobs. They were not only despicable, they hacked the phones of the very groups they had whipped people up to view as untouchable (plus politicians). Although I also like the suggestion I've seen that, once you have foreign nationals in charge of a groups of peope who illegally access and print information about the goverment and head of state, you're actually justified in pursuing treason charges. If you think this is because they were right wing, I suggest you talk to some of their core readership: one of the first things that happened when this stuff started to seriously come out was that the armed forces groups cut off all relationships and boycotted them. 86.164.165.0 (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, because people keep drawing parallels, maybe read up on Robert Maxwell (The Mirror was left-wing). I don't think there's much similarity myself, but it does show people chased him as much as Murdoch. Well, our article doesn't show it that much, so maybe you need to read about it elsewhere. Or consider the fake photos in the Mirror (and The Sun's reaction), although it's not a completely fair comparison: they didn't do it so many, many times, and it could conceivably have been a mistake on their part. 86.164.165.0 (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also also, I should add that the story is about much more than phone hacking: it has changed direction since the first few days. It is about the police not properly investigating it, and lying about that. It is about parliament lying and being lied to. It is about police officers being bribed. It is about News International representatives being placed with the police and in the government. It is about the police and politicians being so scared of Rupert Murdoch that they alter policy and government to appease him, putting him de facto in charge of the government of a country. And were they right to be scared of him? Gordon Brown tried very hard to stay in his good books, but when Murdoch went for him Murdoch went for his children. A phone call to ask about your child's very recent diagnosis, which you haven't told anyone about? Politicians and police knew exactly why they were scared. 86.164.165.0 (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that newspapers (Guardian, Scotsman) which made similar claims to "[The Sun] went for [Brown's] children" have issued retractions and apologies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something that has crossed my mind related to this whole matter is the fact that many (most?) Murdoch newspapers would normally be regarded here as reliable sources. Worth rethinking at all? HiLo48 (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's the whole idea that news media outlets are inherently reliable that needs rethinking, and has done for a while. It doesn't take long to establish that there is little reliable about the news industry...

ALR (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering how many communists are there in Wikipedia? --U8yol (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A major part of the recent scandal has been the News of the World's search for a story under the pretext of it being in the public interest. When that search seemed to be restricted to celebrities and a few politicians embroiled in sleaze, many people didn't seem too surprised and just got on with their lives. However, when it was revealed that the same had been done to the phones of murder victims, victims of terrorism, soldiers killed in action and sick children that really went beyond the pale. People wondered about the morals of those who would let such things happen and exactly what was the public interest in that kind of story. Later revelations, that former NotW execs were appointed to high-level positions within government and police, and that police officers had accepted bribes from NotW journalists (or their private investigators) to get more phone numbers to hack, have led to the current scandal. Astronaut (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current US interest in the Panama Canal

Obviously the US was extremely involved in both creating the Panama Canal and in creating Panama, so as to accomplish the former. My understanding is, apart from any imperial ambitions, this was done because creating a quicker, cheaper, and safer shipping route between the west and east coasts was viewed as a key national interest -- similar to the UK's relation with the Suez Canal. Is that still a concern? My intuition would be that most freight would now go by rail since that would be more direct (and obviously passenger travel by ship is no longer significant). Do you know of any reliable sources on methods of trans-continental shipping in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.68.89 (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Suez Canal Company which constructed and operated the Suez Canal was initially financed almost entirely by the Egyptian government and by French private investors. The British government opposed the canal throughout its construction, and did not acquire shares in the canal company until 1875, six years after the canal was opened. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since corporations are not in the usual habit of throwing away money for no good reason, we'll take it to mean that there is still an econimic benefit for using the Panama Canal over freight rail for certain types of cargo. Petroleum, for example, is probably more efficiently moved by ship than by rail. The evidence that it is useful is that it is used. --Jayron32 15:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, the same argument could have been used to support bloodletting back in the day. Please use references on the Reference Desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum is even more efficiently moved by pipeline, but I get your point. Mingmingla (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that traffic might be from the Pacific coast of North and South America to and from Europe, not from the east coast to the west coast. Unless you find something indicating the route of canal traffic, the fact that it's being used does not answer my question. 96.246.68.89 (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freighters are much, much cheaper, pound for pound, than rail. They are not quicker. They are used for things that you need to go long distances verrrry slowly. Coal is one such example — it's extremely heavy, but not worth a huge amount per pound, and time is not usually an issue. So you want to ship it the absolutely cheapest way possible. In some cases that's by freighter. If you're going from the Pacific to the Atlantic, for whatever reason, by freighter, then the canal is the simplest way to do it. It's not that other forms of transportation are bad, but they are more expensive. You can move a lot of material per amount of fuel consumed via freight. It just doesn't go very fast. If the canal was gone tomorrow, shipping wouldn't stop, but the costs would definitely go up on many products. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also useful to be able to move your navy around quicker to reshuffle ships from the Pacific to the Atlantic or vv, but modern US aircraft carriers don't fit through the canal. Googlemeister (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The canal is currently being enlarged though. Also I found this: [13] which claims that 29 million long tons of Alaska oil (about one-third of the total) went through Panama in 1986 - but only 355,000 long tons was actually shipped through. The vast majority was offloaded into the Panama Pipeline and but into a different ship on the other side. Rmhermen (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panamax#Post-Panamax_ships has a tiny little bit on what you are hinting at there. --Jayron32 02:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even after the expansion, US aircraft carriers might still be too wide to pass through the canal. Hard to say for sure since at the water, the USS Ronald Reagan is 134 wide but ont he flight deck it is 252 feet wide (compared to 180 feet of the lock width) so it might work if the lock is short enough and the flight deck is high enough, but probably not. Googlemeister (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm going downtown" (Chicago)

I asked here previously why New Yorkers referred to Manhattan as “the city” it is part of New York City, but I recently found out that kind of the opposite case is true in the Chicago area. The residents of the cities and towns near Chicago like to refer to Chicago as “downtown” as in "I'm going to downtown." By the way, I’m planning to go to Chicago sometime in August with a friend who’s looking for a home there or in Detroit as I mentioned on a previous question here that he was doing so. I'm going to help him out in his search as a friend. So now, I’m starting to learn all these Chicago code words now that I'm starting to investigate about Chicago before I go there. Anyway, I read that if someone who lives in the suburbs would ask, “Where do you live?” And you say I live in Chicago, the person will say, “Oh, you live downtown, cool!!!!” Why do the residents of Chicagoland refer to Chicago as “downtown” when Chicago is an independent city that has a downtown? Where does that term for Chicago come from? Willminator (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Chicago, "Downtown" probably refers two closely connected districts and the areas around them, being the Chicago Loop and the Magnificent Mile. Officially, the Mag Mile is slightly north of Downtown, but if someone said "I'm going downtown to shop on Michigan Avenue" no one would find that an odd phrase. Having lived there for two years, I wouldn't have described other parts of the city as "Downtown". I lived in Little Italy between Greektown and the Illinois Medical District, and I'm not sure anyone would have thought of those areas as "downtown". Likewise, nothing in the Southside would be considered "downtown" by anyone, and most people wouldn't consider other parts of the city as "downtown" either. It should be noted that most of the affluent parts of Chicago are around "downtown", and many people from the suburbs may consider other parts of the city to be unlivable (not true at all, just a perception), so if you said "No, I live in Hyde Park," people wouldn't think you were being contradictory. In terms of area, Chicago is a pretty spread-out city with many diverse areas. I lived there for 2 years, and there were large parts of the city I never had cause to go to. You can easily drive for more than an hour on one street in Chicago and stay within the City Proper (like Western Avenue, it would be absurd if anyone thought that entire expanse of territory was a "downtown".
As an aside, if you are seriously thinking about moving to Chicago, just a couple of tips about navigating the city:
- Get to know the Chicago Street Grid. Chicago is one of the easiest-to-navigate cities I have ever lived in or visited; it has a strict street grid and house numbering scheme. You can literally pinpoint any address in the city to within a few feet if you just know the system. Roads_and_freeways_in_Chicago#Grid explains it well; but within a few months of living there you should develop a functioning knowledge of the system. You can easily look up any address in the city and find your way there without a GPS. Its great. The suburbanites use the freeway system and clog it up horribly; traffic on the freeways is pretty bad. You can often get where you need to go faster using the surface streets, the diagonal avenues make a nice bypass of the freeways, and so few people use them compared to the freeways you'll feel like you're cheating...
- Secondly, the public transportation system is great too. The 'L' will get you just about anywhere you'd want to go. If you're looking for places to live, I would highly recommend finding a place near the L.
- The really trendy places to live (at least 10 years ago) were anything on the North Side (like Wrigleyville or Lincoln Park) and Hyde Park on the South Side, especially around the University of Chicago. These tended to be the areas with the most vibrant neighborhoods, lots to do, etc. However, you will pay a premium for living there. The area where I lived around the University of Illinois at Chicago was more reasonably priced. It didn't have the nightlife or activities you'd find in some of the trendier areas, but the Blue Line L was very close, and you can get anywhere you want using that. One hidden gem of the city is Roscoe Village which had its own little "main street" area, and it gave me the feeling of being in a small city rather than a huge metropolis. The downside is that it isn't right on the 'L' (there are some sorta-close-by stops on the Blue Line and the Brown line, but nothing goes through the neighborhood).
I hope that gives you some tips! If you have any more questions about my time in Chicago, and don't want to ask here, just drop me a note on my talk page. --Jayron32 17:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having grown up in the far south suburbs, we would say "I am going downtown" (not "to downtown") to mean going to the central and north side, to the museums, etc. Rarely would you say going "to Chicago" unless you were going to another part that required more explanation and then you might you its name unless it was a poorly known area. Rmhermen (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I made the phrase of "going downtown" clear in the heading, but not in my question. My bad. So did I misinterpret what I read on how the suburbanites in the Chicago area define "downtown?" Willminator (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are far outside Chicago, suburbanites will say they live in Chicago, not that they live in Chicagoland. If you were near Chicago, and you say you live downtown, it would likely mean the same as saying you lived in the city, not that you live inside the Loop or whatever definition you make for Chicago's downtown. I also don't think there is any single consistent definition of downtown Chicago. Rmhermen (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a recent Milwaukee transplantee that spent a fair amount of time in Chicago, to me Downtown would have been anything in the loop or the magnificent mile, maybe a small radius around. I conceptually called "chicago" what any true resident of the city would probably call "Chicagoland" just for simplicity and because when you're an hour and a half away it's all "south" to you. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with what's been said. I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago and now live in Vermont. When I was a kid, if we were going "downtown" then we were going to the Loop, Magnificent Mile, or to one of the two baseball stadiums. If someone asks me today where I'm originally from, I still say "Chicago" even though I grew up in the 'burbs. The reason I do this is because everyone knows where Chicago is and it gives them a not so rough idea of where I'm from. If I were to name the suburb right off, I'd have to follow it up with an explanation that it is a suburb since they are likely to have never heard of it and ask where it was anyway. If they bother to ask "What part?" when I just say "Chicago" then I will get more specific. Dismas|^(talk) 03:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

confusion about fatalities

One source said the number of fatalities following the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami was about 23,000. But following Japan's victory at the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup, the number was about 25,000. Now I'm all mixed up. What's the exact number of fatalities?24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no exact number. The current official totals are 15,585 dead and 5,070 missing.[14] However there are individual towns are claiming that the official figures may be undercounts with many more thousands missing. Rmhermen (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I don't think that with an event of that magnitude they'll ever know for certain. This page discusses the authorities' counts to this point. The fact that it's gone down shows how uncertain those numbers are. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the difference between 23k and 25k is pretty small from a "handing waving estimation" point of view. Having 8% uncertainty in the final death count of something like this is not huge, especially when both of those numbers are clearly estimations with rounding. I wouldn't be surprised if indeed the number is more like 15-20k; death estimates after disasters are often much higher than they turn out to be, for reasons I am not too clear on. (I remember the initial estimates of 9/11 being in the tens of thousands, when it was really more like 3k.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on where you get your figures and how those figures were arrived at. If someone has lingering medical issues and dies a month after the event, do you still count them against that event? A lot of people would say yes but would that person's death be picked up by the statisticians and added to the total? Maybe not. Dismas|^(talk) 04:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article about the earthquake and tsunami counts 15,561 fatalities. Another source counts 15,585. Another source counts 20,721. Everything is confusing.24.90.204.234 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some of this comes from the occasional confusion between the words casualties and fatalities. If there are 15,000 killed and 5,000 missing, then there are 20,000 casualties, with 15,000 confirmed fatalities. The distinction gets mixed up sometimes, including on Wikipedia. —Kevin Myers 05:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nero's involvment in Claudius's death

In our article on Nero it says It is not known how much Nero knew or was involved in the death of Claudius. However the Suetonius reference in paragraph 33 it says He began his career of parricide and murder with Claudius, for even if he was not the instigator of the emperor's death, he was at least privy to it, as he openly admitted... So wasn't it either Nero or Agrippina that gave Claudius poison mushrooms (likely Agrippina)? Is there STILL a citation needed IF Suetonius is the reference?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suetonius wasn't even born when Claudius died. As The Twelve Caesars#Critical approaches: Reliability notes, historians have at best rather mixed feelings about his reliability. Given the questionable attitude of all Roman historians to what we'd now call a rigorous, sourced, and unbiased account, it's probably best to frame everything as "according to Suetonius". -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suetonius was highly placed in the Empire, and had access to official records now lost, so we can't check his references for accuracy. Was he cited by scholars? Are there other historians from the period? It does not matter that he is reporting things that happened before he was born. He was a researcher and historian, not a reporter. He was born circa 70CE, and was Trajan's archives director and Hadrian's secretary. What document or archive was hidden to him? Who in the Roman world had better access to the best historical documents from the era of his histories? It is appropriate to state that he is the source, and then state what he said. Edison (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liliuokalani's desire to behead people

WP:NOTAFORUM. If you have a specific question, feel free to post it, but we don't do "a discussion on the topic itself" here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did Liliuokalani really stated she wanted to "behead" the people who overthrew her? I find this piece to be highly offensive and unlikely. Was it just a ploy to blacken her name and portray her as a bloodthirsty tyrant Queen? I'm guessing since this was the age of yellow journalism. She denied the accusation in her autobio, but what does other say? And the reason I find it highly unlikely is the fact that the Kingdom of Hawaii never practice decaptation, at least not during the age of constitutional monarchy, and only practiced hanging, confiscatining property, and exiling people who commited treason.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liliuokalani's autobiography is "yellow journalism"?!? The source for the statement in the Wikipedia article is here (search for the word "beheaded") and the Wikipedia article fairly faithfully reports what it says, which is from the work Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen written by Liliuokalani herself. Wow. You could, you know, check the sources before raising an objection. --Jayron32 01:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What?!? Did you read my question? I never said Liliuokalani's autobio was "yellow journalism". I was asking if what people said about her wanting to behead the revolutionaries was "yellow journalism". The people as the newspapers that came from the mainland that Liliuokalani mentioned in her biography. How can an autobio be yellow journalism to began with?! I talking about the newspapers and what the Americans said about her beheading the revolutionaries. I am perfectly aware of what her autobio said, she said that she never stated that, it wasn't up to her as a constitutional monarch, she was shocked that Minister Willis would use that word after their informal meeting and that a lie can spread far but the true is always misunderstood. Using an autobiographical source is okay but I was wondering if there is any historical analysis on this controversial aspect of her ever saying such a word. I'm on the Queen side on this but I'm always want to be sure.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the wikipedia article says that she says that she never said it. So I am confused as to why you are so offended by the Wikipedia article? --Jayron32 02:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the article. I trying to start a discussion on the topic itself not what wikipedia says.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad. I thought you were offended that the Wikipedia article was spreading "yellow journalism", not that the contemporary journalists of Lilioukalani's time were guilty of it. I only note that modern "news organizations" (and I use the term very loosely) are guilty of the same level of stupidity as those spreading silliness about the former Queen. Unfortunately, I do not know what the source of the Lilioukalani rumor was. Sorry for the mixup. --Jayron32 02:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 19

Will India become a communist country?

The Maoist Rebels have taken control of 30% to 50% of India. It seems that the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency is winning against the Indian government. Will India become a next communist country? And why the U.S. is not supporting the Indian government to fight the maoist rebels? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that states that "The Maoist Rebels have taken control of 30% to 50% of India"? Nobody seems to have noticed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there are two "legitimate" communist parties which participate peacefully in democratic elections, being Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Communist Party of India, and they each have a few elected officials here and there. The Communist Party of India (Maoist) appears to be the most radical group, having claimed some terrorist attacks. There is also the Naxalite movement, which appears closely allied with the Maoists. I don't know how active they are, but I don't think any of these groups, either the participating parties or the radical militant groups, represents a threat to take over India, either by democratic or violent means. --Jayron32 05:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rebels control large areas of rural India; the BBC claims "Maoists and affiliated groups are active in more than a third of India's 600-odd districts". The map on Naxalite shows affected areas; the "seriously affected" are far less than 30%; and because they focus on rural areas it will be an even smaller percentage of India's population. They are based in remote forests and mountainous areas where the police and armed forces can't go (and the police action seems to have been notably inefficient). Although they launch regular terrorist attacks they don't seem to be centrally organised and they're not likely to be able to defeat the world's third-largest military, the Indian Armed Forces.[15][16] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth pointing out that the Communist parties (which have a coalition under the name of the Left Democratic Front) that are quite powerful in the southern states of Tamilnadu and Kerala aren't very Communist; they wave hammers and sickles about but they actually run the best-governed states in the country, with high literacy rates, high employment, low mortality etc. They're probably more what we'd call socialist in actual fact. (Most of the Keralan 'Communist' candidates that I met earlier this year were far too fat to qualify as real Communists anyway!!) ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 09:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be surprised, but the defining ideological goals of a communist party are not low literacy and employment and high mortality. It's absurd that achieving good results should automatically disqualify a party from being called "communist" (see also No true Scotsman fallacy). Not to mention the fact that most of the "real", Stalinist communist parties, unsympathetic as they were, also achieved high literacy rates (and high employment, for what it's worth, and affordable basic health care ensuring relatively low mortality) - despite dictatorship, initial periods of political terror and economic catastrophes, inefficient economies etc..--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a huge number of communist parties in India (see Category:Communist parties in India), most of which are insignificant in national politics. Some of them compete in elections and, of those, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) is by far the most important. However, the fronts it leads lost control of both Kerala and West Bengal at the last elections, and politically it is not supportive of the Naxalite uprising. I expect that the original question regards the Naxalites, but, as the article states, "As of 2009, Naxalites were active across approximately 180 districts in ten states of India accounting for about 40% of India's geographical area" - 'active in' is very diferent from 'taken control' of. Even if the Naxalites were to somehow manage to take control of much of this area, they have very limited support in much of the country, and are not a single, unified force, so I can't imagine any circumstances under which they might make the whole country communist. I expect that the U.S. government has not shown any particular support for the Indian government in this because it is an internal matter with no serious international implications, and the Indian government has not (to the best of my knowledge) asked for outside assistance. Warofdreams talk 11:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking a magic 8 ball? We don't have the ability to see the future or we would not be here, but rather relaxing at our mansion in St Barts from all the billions we made in stocks. Googlemeister (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of the vaguely popular parties actually communist, advocating a 100% property tax, or are they merely socialists calling themselves communists? How are the relations between the bona fide communists and socialists? Would you say the Indian Maoists are more totalitarian, fascist, communist, or socialist in terms of their policy planks? 99.2.148.119 (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever told you that communism is about "a 100% property tax" was wrong.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Austria" in Austria

(Whilst the question is overtly a language one, I'm guessing the answer is historical or political, hence raising it here.) I recently visited Austria, and was a little surprised to find the word "Austria" used frequently in the name of Telekom Austria, a bank, and a couple of sports teams. In fact, in many ways it was more prominent than Österreich except in an adjective sense. Why the adoption of the English term? I'd be surprised to find any such institution in the UK called Vereinigte Königreich (even considering the greater spread of English compared to German). I considered that Österreich with its imperial feel might be unfashionable, but surely avoiding the name of your country would be a big step? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to discussion the last time this came up. By the way I'm an English expat living in Austria and I can attest to da troof of what you are saying. --Viennese Waltz 11:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Austria is a Latin name. See our article Name of Austria which says, amongst other things, "The name "Austria" is a latinization of German Österreich. This has led to much confusion as German öst is "east", but Latin auster is "south". It is first recorded as Austrie marchionibus (Margrave of Austria) on a deed issued by Conrad III to the Klosterneuburg Monastery in 1147. On the Privilegium Minus of 1156, the name of the country is given as marchiam Austriae (March of Austria) and as Austriae ducatum (Duchy of Austria). In English usage, "Austria" is attested since the early 17th century." Hope this helps. DuncanHill (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You give a poor example, cf England or Angleterre, Schottland or Écosse, Nordirland or Irlande du Nord, Wales or Pays de Galles. Austria must look novel or quaint to the German eye.

I thought ost was east.
Sleigh (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"East" is Osten as a noun, but the adjective "eastern" is östlich, so öst- is also associated with the meaning "east". I think a lot of the use of "Austria" you're seeing has to do with wanting to be international. Austria isn't just English and Latin: go to wikt:Austria#Translations and click "show" and you'll see how many languages call it "Austria" or something very close to it. People all over the world will recognize the name "Austria" even if they have no idea what "Österreich" is. (Of course, many of those who recognize will confuse it with "Australia", but that's a different problem.) "Austria" is also easier for foreigners to pronounce than "Österreich". "Austria" just makes for a better internationally recognizable and marketable brand name. Angr (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If "east is Osten as a noun", what's the difference between der Osten and der Ost? --Viennese Waltz 12:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good question. There's certainly no significant difference in semantics; to judge from wikt:de:Ost, it's a matter of how they're used. Ost is used in navigation and meteorology, and as a prefix in place names like Ostdeutschland and Ost-Berlin. All the main directions have a form with and a form without -en: Nord/Norden, Ost/Osten, Süd/Süden, West/Westen. I'm not a native speaker, so I don't have a very good feel for when to use each; personally I'd probably never use the short forms except in compounds (not just place names like those mentioned above but also words like Ostwind). Angr (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my German is a bit rusty but I would avoid using 'Ost' on its own, which is a prefix (as Angr explained above) or an abbreviation. Ostwind = East wind/Eastern wind. Osten is the proper word. Der Osten = the East. Er kommt aus dem Osten = He comes from the East. AFAIK no German-speaker is going to say: Der Ost. Er kommt aus dem Ost. Flamarande (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, except that, as Angr's link to the German Wiktionary makes clear, der Ost can be more than either a prefix or an abbreviation. --Viennese Waltz 13:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's wise to use "Ost" rarely for a noun meaning "the east", and I can't think of a good example where you'd use the definite (or any) article as in "der Ost", unless you're writing about the wind in a maritime poem. Ost without article can be seen in juxtapositions such as "Ost und West" or "West begegnet Ost", and it's used when discussing a compass for example "eine Drehung von Nord nach Ost". While you will find examples for "Richtung Ost", you'll find at least tenfold the number for "Richtung Osten"; the former sounds a bit military or technical or something (?). English Wiktionary's entry, simply defining it as "the East", is a bit too concise. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.E.I.O.U.--Rallette (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Italy

I quite like and have made some use out of this map of Germnany c1000 AD, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heiliges_R%C3%B6misches_Reich_1000.PNG but I was wondering if there was any chance of finding a similar map showing Italy around the same time and in the same level of detail, with the towns and cities and rivers marked and divided up into its various regions?

79.66.101.168 (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's something at the Perry-Castañeda Map Collection that will strike your fancy. Pais (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Images gave me this map which looks to be roughly of the same scale, level of detail, age, and time period as the one of Germany above. --Jayron32 15:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inheriting royal houses in Europe

Why were the decedents of Queen Victoria of the UK members of her husband's House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and not her House of Hanover? Is it because the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha outranks the House of Hanover or because houseships can only go down the male line? If it's because the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha outranks the House of Hanover, how are the ranks of houses determined and why didn't Victoria's titles of Queen and Empress make her house higher-ranking? If it's because houseships can only go down the male line, then if a female queen-regent married a commoner, would her son become a king or queen with no house? --174.91.8.226 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all but a few rare cases, the house name always follows male lines. (One major exception I can think of is the House of Romanov which didn't change names in common usage even after Paul I of Russia inherited the throne, his own father wasn't a Romanov but a member of the House of Holstein-Gottorp). Thus, Victoria's children become members of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because that is the House of Prince Albert. Pre-supposing the next question, the reason that Charles, Prince of Wales is considered part of the House of Windsor rather than the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (which is is Father's House) is simply that the Queen declared it to be so. Otherwise, however, noble houses follow male lines. As far as what would happen if the queen married a commoner, it may just be that the Husband's surname would become the House name; though since I literally can't think of a single time of it happening, so the best we can say is that it is an unresolved problem; that is since it has never come up, there is no official solution. --Jayron32 16:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Elizabeth II just unilaterally declared that her children would be in her hourse instead of her husband's house, and that's enough to break the male preference of houseship inheritance? Do we know why Victoria didn't do the same thing for her children? Was it just the culture of her time? --174.91.8.226 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to #1 is yes. The answer to #2 is we don't know why, we can only note that she did not. Its kinda like asking why you didn't eat ham and eggs for breakfast this morning. People don't often make copious note of why they didn't choose to do some random act. Positive action is usually much easier to assign the "becauses" to; since people usuaully have justification for actions they take. People "don't do" an infinite number of things in any given second of their lives, and thus there isn't often justification for why we are not doing something. --Jayron32 17:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, Victoria's behavior in this regard is less surprising than Elizabeth's. Noble children inherit their father's house the way commoners' children inherit their father's last name. If a commoner named Victoria Hanover married a commoner named Albert Saxe, no one would be surprised that their children bore the surname Saxe. But if a commoner named Elizabeth Windsor married a commoner named Philip Mountbatten, people would be surprised (perhaps less so today than 60 years ago) if the parents decided the children would bear the surname Windsor. It probably never occurred to Victoria that her children would belong to any house other than their father's. Angr (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that Victoria wasn't subject to the same anti-German sentiment that caused George V of the United Kingdom to create the House of Windsor in July 1917 and she felt no need to do anything but follow custom. And when his granddaughter made her proclamation in 1952, she had only been queen for two months, it may have also been due to anti-German feelings. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that Charles and Anne, who were both born before this edict, spent the early parts of their lives as members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of culture is America?

What kind of culture is America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoamchtoothMMX (talk • contribs) 17:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America is not a culture, it is a country. Why do you ask? Looie496 (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America does have a culture, however, and if the OP is interested in reading about it, the article Culture of the United States has a good overview, and they can follow links from there as they wish. --Jayron32 17:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America is not a country either, it is a whole quite large landmass, over there somewhere. 79.66.101.168 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In English, the word "America" as a singular without an article usually refers to the United States of America, unless contexts suggests otherwise. If you want to refer to the landmass comprised of the two continents of North America and South America, the more common term is "the Americas". --174.91.8.226 (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it has more than one culture. Marco polo (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is too open-ended. Can the person posing the question give some examples of the kinds of cultures that are to be considered? Bus stop (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Western. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers firing bullets in the air to celebrate

News footage from Libya often shows the rebels firing automatic weapons in the air to celebrate reports of a troop advance, or reports of Nato bombing some Qadaffi asset. March 28, 2011: "There were several rounds of firing in the air by jubilant rebels who vowed to bring an early end to the 41-year-old Gaddafi regime." May 11, 2011: "..convoys of machine-gun trucks paraded past with their occupants cheering and firing in the air. "God is great!" they chanted. " Even the Libyan government troops fired in the air to celebrate: April 29, 2011: "The Libyan government sent text messages to mobile phones of its armed supporters, urging them to stop firing in the air in order to save ammunition for "our crusader enemies,""This would seem to be a bad idea, since the ammo might be needed if they actually fought a battle, and since money is reported to be short and a AK47 ammo costs $230 per thousand rounds retail. A bullet that goes up must come down and might hit someone or something. Was it a habit of soldiers in major wars of the 19th or 20th century to celebrate thus? Or would they quickly be disciplined for wasting ammunition? Is it a Middle Eastern thing, or a "improvised untrained rebel army thing?" Is it a characteristic of "soldiers" who have not actually been in combat? Or did German US, British, and Japanese soldiers do it in WW2, or UN and Korean forces in the Korean Conflict, or the US and allies and the Vietnamese/Viet Cong do it in the Vietnam War, or the opposing forces in Libya and Afghanistan? A Google News Archive search for "celebratory gunfire" from 1939-1945 produced no results. A similar search limited to Libya for 2011 produced 45 results. Edison (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Middle Eastern thing -- in the parts where everybody is armed, any sort of celebration will provoke lots of shooting into the air -- even weddings and things like that. Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They do it in some parts of North America, too, but it's a terrible idea. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at Celebratory gunfire? --LarryMac | Talk 18:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love how Wikipedia has an article on almost everything. Is there an article on Wasting ammunition? I guess notm, because it comes up a red link. Edison (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting your guns into the air in celebration was also something gangs of "Cowboys" did in "Wild West" (at least according to Hollywood... reality may have been different). Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a particularly male thing, and perhaps a testosterone-fuelled male thing, and may be symbolic of shooting ... other kinds of "bullets" ... behind closed doors ... if you get my drift. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean ejaculation, but I am just taking a wild guess here. --Jayron32 21:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You got my drift. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it has more to do with the noise than the bullets. It is a "gun-culture" equivalent of ancient warriors banging their swords or spears on their shields (or priests ringing bells for that matter). Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, is it an activity of rear echelon military fakers, pretend soldiers, as opposed to something soldiers who are on, or have been on the battlefront do? (In 1964 the Laotian army fired most of their ammo at the Moon because there was an eclipse, but at least they imagined they were frightening away an evil spirit). Edison (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think fireworks, if you have guns and bullets to hand, way more convenient. Richard Avery (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather more hazardous though: see bridegroom in Turkey accidentally kills three relatives while firing an AK-47 in celebration at his own wedding and Gunfire kills at least 11 people across Yemen after president's first appearance since injury. I'm sure that there are many similar stories out there. Alansplodge (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

Did Britain ever try to take over Europe?

Seems like other major European countries have tried at some point to take over Europe like France or Germany, but did Britain ever attempt this? If not, why not? ScienceApe (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly tried to take over France (see Hundred Years' War), and they also conquered Ireland (see Tudor conquest of Ireland). Attempting to take over other countries would have been problematic due to the distances and transportation requirements. You'll notice that almost all of the Europe conquering was done in more-or-less a geographically contiguous way. England wouldn't have skipped over France and started to invade Austria, for example. Even trying to conquer Norway would have been problematic due to the long sea voyage. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (first part reply to the OP) Depends on what you mean by "Britain". At one point, the ruling dynasty in England (the Plantagenets) controlled vast parts of France directly, and even laid claim to the throne of France itself. Maybe you've heard of the Hundred Years War? The term Angevin Empire (Angevin after Anjou, the region of France where the family originated.) is sometimes used for the continental possessions of the English Royal Family at this time; however this was long before the concept of the nation state ever existed, so speaking of "countries" as we mean them in the modern sense doesn't work here. (post EC reply to 140.142) Excepting that the Norse invaded and took over England, see Cnut the Great. There's nothing problematic about that, it actually happened, just in the other direction. --Jayron32 03:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that England, and later the UK, actively followed the colonial policy that many ascribe to them: let the foreigners bicker around on the continent, and focus on the colonial empire. Such a policy meant a natural double role for the navy: support the colonies, and prevent an invasion. This would have been supported by the fact that several French attempts at invading England and one very famous Spanish one had been unsuccessful. Similarly, Britain was often defeated on the European stage: the Seven Years' War, for example, saw several losses in Europe (and in general, the leaving-the-war-there-to-someone-else policy). Britain's personal union with the Kingdom of Hannover would have allowed European meddling, but the British clearly had no appetite for such complicated politics. So I think the story is of a line of thinking that became gradually reinforced; from the times the the Tudors lost Britain's remaining lands in France, and before that had spent vast sums attempting to maintain them, through to a colonial period characterised by the Seven Years' War where British colonialism was seen as a great success, and so a priority. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Building on some of the earlier comments, a long string English monarchs (some of whom were also British monarchs) would have perceived their claims over France as reconquest of what was rightfully theirs, rather than the POV-laden "take over" of the question. But I don't think any of them can genuinely be regarded as having made a genuine stab at taking much more than a bit of the continent at a time. The closest is probably Edward I. He owned England and a chunk of France, conquered Wales, came close to taking Scotland and at the time of his death, was trying to arrange for his son to not only get all of that, but also the norse inheritance of Margaret, Maid of Norway. But he failed. And that's still a long way short of "Europe". The OP should also consider that Britain, even in Empire days, has for centuries seen itself predominantly as a maritime power - see Britannia rules the waves. As an aside, User:Clio the Muse would have loved this question, if not my answer. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article 5 of ICJ Statute

Article 5 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice prescribes:

"At least three months before the date of the election, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a written request to the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration belonging to the states which are parties to the present Statute, and to the members of the national groups appointed under Article 4, paragraph 2, inviting them to undertake, within a given time, by national groups, the nomination of persons in a position to accept the duties of a member of the Court."

Can anyone please explain this provision in normal language to me? I've read it repeatedly but I still don't clearly understand it. Especially, I don't understand why the phrase "by national groups" is there; not knowing what is the function of that phrase (to deal with the phrase "within a given time" in order to express the meaning that such time is given by the national groups?).

Thank you so much. --Aristitleism (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand it either, but I'll have a go. My reading is that "by national groups" is independent of "within a given time", and it means the nomination is to be carried out by national groups. As best quick googling can tell, the national groups are the up-to-four people each state has on the Permanent Court of Arbitration or has appointed by Art 4 para 2 which basically says "exactly the same conditions apply". [17] is an Irish Foreign Ministry page sort of indicating that. [18] seems to be about the (proposed?) similar organisation for the Arab League, and section 3.2.1 is a discussion of the system of nomination to the ICJ. Does that make any more sense? 95.150.23.60 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I understand that the Secretary-General requests both (1) the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and (2) the members of the national groups to make the nomination, isn't that correct? I also think that "by national groups" is independent of "within a given time" because there is comma between them. However, I still don't know the truly purpose/function of the phrase "by national groups". That's why I don't really understand this provision. --Aristitleism (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I think the national groups are the only ones who make the nominations. This includes the national groups who are part of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and some other national groups. Perhaps some of the confusion arises because of the part about 'members of the national groups appointed under Article 4, paragraph 2' which reflects the fact the article shouldn't be read in isolation. If you read article 4 paragraph 2 [19] it's clearly referring to national groups appointed by UN members who are not a part of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

The 'within a given time' is I presume either instructing the SG to give a time frame or indicating that the national groups have a limited time to make the nominations and aren't supposed to try to hold up the process by refusing to nominate anyone.

Note that International Court of Justice also says it is the national groups who make the nominations. See also [20] which discusses the national groups in the PCA and how they can nominate members for the ICJ. BTW from the above linked article on the PCA, only 112 out of the current 193 (well I've included the newest member South Sudan for the 193 but not the 112 but it's possible they've already joined the PCA, Sudan was part) indicating somewhat why the Article 4 Paragraph 2 thing is needed.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, the function of the phrase "by national groups" (after "within a given time") is to merely emphasise that the "nomination of persons in a position to..." is to be made "by national groups" (those requested by the UN secretary-general according to such provision)? --Aristitleism (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably yes. This would be opposed to the nomination by the various members ambassadors to the UN or some other such person/s and would also be opposed to each member of the PCA giving their own individual nominations (perhaps the more important point). Note that since there are up to four members who are part of a national group, there is obviously a big difference between each member and each national group making nominations. And there are limits on the nominations (no more then four nor double the members that need to be elected and no two from one country). BTW I've made some minor changes to my above comment which I only saved after you replied. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forming one's own country

How to establish one's own country? --Mango0099 (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Declaration of independence and Micronation will be of interest. 130.88.73.71 (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, none of the Micronations are actually "recognized" as countries, they're basically composed of members of fringe political groups who decided that they didn't want to follow the laws of the countries they were residents of. --Jayron32 12:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen proposing

Who made up the rule that Queen regnants had to propose to their husbands? And has all European queen regnant in modern age proposed to their husbands like Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II, ie. Portugal, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg (although only Grand Duchesses)? Did Queen Mary I propose to Philip of Spain or was it the other way around? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do queen regnants have to propose to their husbands? A number of sources say Philip proposed to Elizabeth.[21][22][23] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although Elizabeth wasn't queen at the time, if that makes a difference. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American liberals vs socialists

What is the difference between American liberals and socialists? --79df (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberals are generally linked with Democratic Party (United States); see Liberalism in the United States. The Socialist Party USA is socialist(!) and the article has a little info on its policies: widespread public ownership and workers' control of corporations are key, as well as publicly owned free healthcare; its official website has more details[24]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) "Socialist" is a very vague term nowadays, because many parties in Europe retain their names from a more leftist period. The OP should explain whether s/he means "socialists" as in the French socialist party, for instance (just left of centre, not too different from American liberals), or "socialists" in the sense of "proponents of socialism", i.e. proponents of an economic system different from capitalism, where factories, companies and land aren't private property (like Socialist Party USA). People who call themselves "socialists" in the USA are likely to be of the second type, I think.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By socialist, I mean anti-capitalist people who advocate public ownership of key industries, public ownership of healthcare and education sector, free healthcare, free and compulsory education (these are controversial issues and I'm not interested in the debate whether these so-called "free" something are good or bad) for poor, and maximum "redistribution of wealth" by imposing maximum taxes on riches. Private business, if exist, according to them should be taxed heavily. They also advocate maximum "minimum wage", rigid labor laws, oppose hire and fire policy, opposed to property rights. Socialists also believe that owners of capital exploit the workers, this is why public ownership is the solution to stop "exploitation", as they call it, of workers. Do American liberals have these beliefs? --79df (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of "socialist" is a rather weird hybrid, an attempt to combine the two distinct types of "socialism" that I mentioned and seems to be influenced by right-wing propaganda. It doesn't exactly match any existent type of "socialist". Lumping together moderate positions such as high taxes and free education with radical positions such as the confiscation of all private property is completely artificial. A "socialist socialist" does not focus on taxes on the rich, because, in view of the public ownership of the economy, the rich wouldn't exist. Saying that taxing the rich to provide education is the same as abolishing private property is absurd.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The positions I described above are democratic socialist positions, as opposed to classical socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat). Classical socialists advocate forceful confiscation of private property, democratic socialists do not. Their means of achieving socialism and eradication of capitalism are different, but their fundamental view is same. --79df (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A modern day "democratic socialist" is afraid of the very word "nationalization". I don't know what you mean by "forceful" confiscation - classical socialists were not united in wanting a revolution, confiscation or even buying by the democratically elected state could have worked, too (though I suppose that specifically Marx wouldn't believe in that possibility). The fundamental view is not the same - European "reformed" socialists and American liberals want to keep capitalism and inequality and just mitigate their negative effects a bit by occasional interventions of state policy. Classical socialists don't want any capitalism and any inequality. The difference is enormous, although if one is located in the opposite end of the political spectrum, both will seem like anathema to one. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free health care and compulsory education are not socialist positions, except in the rhetoric of US right-wingers. They are entirely mainstream in most developed market democracies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To OP's questions immediately above Stephen Schulz's response: In that case, no. On the political continuum, the Democratic Party (America's "Left-Center" party) comes closer to that than the Republican Party (America's "Right-Center" party) does, but that's not saying much. Generally, some of those issues are well supported by both parties, some by neither, but in general the Democratic Party comes closer. For example, both parties in general fully support free and compulsory education (A very small number of Republicans and some members of the Libertarian Party, a small "third party", oppose it) and both parties support major health and welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare. That is, even the conservative Republican Party has no desire to dismantle these programs, and supports them fully. Neither party supports completely free or government provided healthcare (though the Democrats support implementing Medicare-like programs for a greater number of people). Neither party AT ALL supports government ownership of major industrial sectors, or oppose property rights, and neither party supports "redistributing wealth", though the Democrats generally favor meeting budget shortfalls by increasing the government's income, usually through increased taxes, while the Republicans generally favor doing the same by reducing expenditures instead. --Jayron32 12:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GOP has put forward certain proposals, which have been cited by its opponents in accusations that it wants to privatize both Social Security and Medicare, even though it avoids these exact terms.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2)Part of the problem is that your assumptions about Socialism aren't actually Socialist views. They sound more like classical Communism, which no nation has ever actually achieved.

Some socialists endeavor to implement communism, but not the majority. The American brand of liberalism generally accepts our mixed-market economy, with more emphasis on social programs than conservative Laissez-faire economics. The majority of American liberals are still conservative by European standards. There are a few on the fringe who could be called actual Socialists, but the majority of American liberals are still pretty centrist with their policies. American politicians are very unlikely to be truly "anti-capitalist," nor are they for true "redistribution of wealth." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misconception on the meaning of communism. Do you know what does communism mean? Communism is a social system which is be both classless and stateless. The term "communist state" (which is widely used in popular culture) is an oxymoron because communist social order and the state can't co-exist.. Soviet Union was a socialist state. As Marx said, socialism will be the transition phase from capitalist social order (society divided among capitalists and workers) to communist social order (classless and stateless society). Classical socialism (USSR) is dictatorship of the proletariat (single-party rule by a workers' vanguard party), democratic socialism is socialist economic policies within a democratic political framework (multiparty electoral system). The positions I described above are democratic socialist positions, as opposed to classical socialism (USSR). --79df (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

79df, HandThatFeeds uses "socialism" and "communism" in the sense of political ideologies/groupings (of "socialists" and "communists"), not the narrowly Marxian use of the terms in the sense of different stages in the development of a society. The same applies to my response to him. Both uses of the terms are "correct", just in different contexts.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HandThatFeeds, classical socialism was the same as communism. The current "pro-capitalism socialists" are a recent phenomenon. When the term "communist" came to be used to denote something distinct from "socialist", it was only to designate members of Lenin's Third International as opposed to other socialists. Both groups had public ownership of the economy as the ultimate aim, and that aim had been characteristic of all socialists long before Lenin.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, both classical socialists (violent overthrow of capitalism) and democratic socialists (gradual overthrow of capitalism) believe owners of capital exploit the workers. This is the main diagnostic feature of a socialist. Thus both classical and democratic socialists are two sub-species of the same species. Some democratic socialists advocate public ownership of all means of production, other democratic socialists advocate imposing high taxes on owners of capital, implementing rigid labor laws, and then redistribute the wealth among the workers as an alternative to government ownership. These two kinds of democratic socialists (advocate of absolute public ownership and advocate of moderate public ownership with strong redistribution mechanism) are phenotypically different, but genotypically similar. --79df (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @IP91, classical socialism was a step towards communism, but not one-and-the same. Yes, you're correct that public ownership of the economy was the ultimate aim, but socialism veered away from that very quickly. Hence, my distinction between socialism and true communism (which would be the end-product of those goals).

@79df you miss the distinction. Or, you're applying a very strict definition of socialism. If that's the case, American liberals have nothing to do with socialists as you understand them. They lean towards social programs & tighter regulation, but have no desire to sublimate all commerce & property into government hands. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Very quickly" is a relative term. The non-communist socialists didn't have to renounce the ultimate goal officially, since they could just postpone it constantly in view of their "reformist", gradualist strategy. I recall reading that as late as the beginning Mitterrand's presidency, the French socialists were seriously thinking of nationalizing industries. About that time, the great rightward change began, and now the European "socialists" are often even seen privatizing instead of nationalizing.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not American liberals have similarity with the second type of democratic socialists (implementing a "redistribution" mechanism by imposing high taxes on riches and then using that tax money for "social welfare" polices as an alternative to common ownership of property)? --79df (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Calling taxation "redistribution" is a bit of a stretch, as the taxes are used for far more than just social programs. And, under the current circumstances, it's revoking the tax cuts for the rich that are being discussed, not new taxation. The thing to keep in mind is that American liberals (and some conservatives) support social programs like federal parks, basic education and health inspection. But, there's no attempt to make "common ownership of property" at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare." BTW, progressive taxation is violation of equality before law because it discriminates against the riches. --79df (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream American liberals are not really interested in redistribution of income per se. They are interested in making sure that, in a rich society, nobody goes hungry or is denied needed medical care. They think that the cost of achieving those goals should be shared according to people's ability to pay. They are not opposed to inequality of wealth or to capitalism, per se. They do see a role for government regulation where the market has failed to meet society's needs, in areas such as financial intermediation or healthcare provision, but this hardly amounts to opposition to capitalism as an underlying economic system.

As for the notion that progressive taxation violates equality before the law, that is debatable. Everyone at a given income level is treated equally, according to law. Laws by their nature have to discriminate. Should children under the age of 5 be allowed to drive? Aren't laws preventing them from doing so a violation of equal treatment? The fact is that people over the age of 16 or so are better able to drive. Similarly, people over a given income level are better able to pay. Another example would be a law regulating a military draft during a time of national emergency. Such a law would target people within an age range best able to provide the service needed. Would the draft law's exemption of people under the age of 16 and over the age of 65 count as a violation of equality under law for those aged 16–65? Few people would make such an argument. Marco polo (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayana: Disambiguation

Recently I came to know about the largest Indonesian departmental stores chain called Ramayana. Since Ramayana is a Hindu epic and Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country, I think it is of interest and a disambiguation could be relevant. I want to know about your decision in this matter.

Also, though I have done some editing, I don't know how to handle a disambiguation. Can some editors handle it if I send you the text (if the suggestion is Okayed)?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shillog (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this question is really for the Wikipedia:Help desk instead of the reference desk. That said, it's really not necessary to do a new disambiguation page for it. If the store chain has enough references, you can create Ramayana (store) and use Template:Redirect at the top of the main Ramayana page to let people know about the other option, or just add it to Ramayana (disambiguation). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do scriptures say that ancestors' sins are inherited?

Some argue that aborted babies go to Hell because of the original sin. I haven't seen any verse saying that ancestors' sins are inherited? --70.179.165.67 (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]